Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-04-12


htnbal, who we're also general mortgage
creditors, that they ought TO be substituted,
and The lieu OF the first and geaeral mort
gage creditors and the supplies creditors
whose claims they had paid. Judge Blair.
OF toe Circuit Court. was of opinion, and 20
decrced, that these creditors we're entitled
TO such rights ~ substitution TO the amount
OF about s27j, 900. From that decree an sp-
peal was taken by the first mortgage creditors
TO the Supreme Court IL was argued here
IN the Court OF Appeals by Judge ". X.
staples and SIR. Joseph Clark, OF Philadel-
phia, for the income bondhoIders, and Mr..
Frank Clark, oi Baltimore, and Mtssrs.
Lsbartine ard Leedam, and Judge William
and Beverley Crump for the mortgage credit
tors.
In the case OF the income creditors the de-
cree OF the Circuit Court was reversed,
Judge Lewis delivering the opinion. Tie
court held That The income bondh0lders. In eX.
changing promissory notes and coupons held
by them for income bonds, plainly intended
10 surrender these securities to make new
debt by the investmentin income bonds. II
was not q matter OfDore exchange OF sccilri.
ties. but the acceptance Of one security In
the payment OF another, and therefore the
income bond creditors were not entitled to
any right OF suDrocation.
CAR TRUST.
And still another branch Of the case grows
out OF what known as tie Car Trust claims,
amounting 10 S744. 7Gj. The entire rolling
stock o. the ShedaudOah Valley Railroad
Company WAS furnished by the Car Trust,
or Equipment Companies, a. they are called,
upon leases or conditional sales which pro-
vided tor the payment Of annual rent for
,he use OF the rolling stock until the entire
Indebtedness was discharged. Tho Com
missioner reported the indebtedness just
mentioned, and the Car.Trust Company,
under the statute OF 1879, claimed Hen
upon the franchises, the entire body OF the
road. and its earnings paramount to that OF
the mortgage creditor; ana they claimed
also the right. II they deemed proper, To take
possession OK their rolling stock. Judge
Blair, in the Circuit Court, sustained the
claims Of the Csr-Trust Company through
out. An appeal from the decree was taken
by the first mortgage creditors, and the ques-
tion was argued along with others arising IN
the case by the same counsel
The opinion was delivered by Judge
Lewis. Judge Lewis said that the car.trust
companies asserted lien upon the whole
franchises and corpus Of the road, and all its
earnings under the statute OF 1877, as
amended by the statute OF 1879. The Constl-
tuition OF the state requires that no statute
should embrace more than one OBJECT, Whlc0
should be expressed IN the title. That
neither In The act Of 1877 nor in the act OF
1879 WAS any reference Whatever TO what Is
known as supply creditors. The title OF
these acts related exclUsivciy to the salaries
OF officers and TO the claims OF employees ei
the company. Tcst II was clear, therefore,
that so much of these acts as gave 10 sup
ply creditors Il lien on the road was ilncon-
siitutonsl and void, because not expressed
in the title. He said, however, that whist
the car-trust companies could not under
these statutes. have any lien on the rosd Tor
the amount due them, they were entitled to
take possession az the rOlling-stock en-
braced in their leases or conditional sales,
which would be ample security and protec.
ton 10 them. Upon this point, therefore,
the decree " the Circuit Court was re-
yersed. and the cause IemAnded for further
proceedings.
II is proper 10 state that the question OF
the constituiionslity Of the act OF 1879 was
not raised before Judge Blair, OF the Circuit
Court. but was for the first time presented
in the Court OF Appeals.
TIE RESULT.
Judge Lewis's opinion was very Interest,"
ing, clearly and fOrcibly discussing all the
views involved.
This disposes OF one OF the most important
cases heard in the Court Of Appeals for
many years, involving in its different
branches not less than g. 900, 900, consuming
about three weeks IN the argument before
the court.
Under this decision the Shensndoah-Vai-
lev Railroad Company will be sold at an ear
lv date, as il Is now In the hands OF re-
ceiyer
The ONLY counsel present were judge
Crump, representing the fist general mort
gage Londhol1ers; Judge Staples, represeut-
Ing the eenersl mortgage bondholders, and
Mr.. Trayers, representing the Shenandoah
Valley Railroad Company.
OTHER CASES.
Richmond and Danville Railroad Compa'
nv againSl Noel a. Sterling. From the Cor
poration Court Of DanyIle. Reversed,
Judge Lacy delivering the opinion.
Slater. Myers & 60. against Moore. From
the Corporation Court OF Norfolk, Va. Re-
yer.ed, Judge Fauntleroy delivering the
opinion.
Mustain against Pannilrs executor. From
the Circuit Court Of Plltsylyana county.
Reversed, judge Hinton delivering the
opinion OF the court.
Ayers against Well$s Administrator. FROM
the Circuit Court OF Pittsylvania county.
Affirmed, Judge Lacy delivering the opin-
ion.
Jenkins against Lawrence. From the
ChAncery Court Of the city Of Richmond.
Afirmed, Judge Fauntleroy delivering the
opiaion.
Motley against Frank and ais. Appeal al
lowed 10 a decree pronounced by the Circuit
Court OF the town OF Danyille on the Odd OF
January, 1889.
Hardy aud ais. against Wiley and ais. Ap-
peal allowed to decree pronounced by the
Chancery Court OF the city OF Richmond on
the 18th ol December, 1888.
Wallace against Minor. Cause pnt on
nrivilese docket for November term next.
Gaines aga,us, Peck, Judge. Petition for
prohibition denied.