Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-05

count OF the purchase money, of which
mere remained in his hands unexpended
S'o'oOl'vV' ana also there remained the
unpaid @vOV0 Of the purchase money,
making Sb5.S5l50 TO be thereafter dis
'rlDuted, as the court should direct
Inc answer states that said commit
zee published a notice, addressed to the
holders OF the first consolidated 6-per-
cent. mortgage bonds. Of the South Caro-
ma Railroad Company. from January
o' 1874, TO March 3, 1894, in four of the
mcst-widely circulated New York city
aaiiy newspapers, in the Charleston
Daliy News and Courier. on February
o. D. 10 L, and 10. 1894; and also in all
'he financial weekly newspapers, publish
ed IN the city Of New York to the num-
Der of seventeen.
The notice stated that the United
states Circuit Court for the District Of
south Carolina had on November 20. 1888,
decreed that the South Carolina rail-
road should be sold at auction in
Charleston on April Y, 1894. That the
minimum bid fixed by the decree was
N,ODOOJJ that il was 10 the interest Of
the junior security holders to buy the
property at the lowest figure. and that
it was to the interest Of the bondhold-
ers TO whom the notice was addressed
10 purchase the property, rather shan
let it be sold at less than the amount
of their interest and bonds, prior liens
and charges. That bondholders wishing
TO participate in this arrangement must
deposit their bonds on or before Febru-
airy Is, 1894. with the New York Guar
anty and Indemnity Company against
negotiable receipts.
The Circuit Court Judge Smonton)
dismissed the petition, and the petitioner
appealed.
THE COURTS OPINION
The opinion of the judges Of the Court
Of Appeals, readsi
1T is urged that the attorney Of the
committee who attended the sale acted
in sucn a manner as TO chill COMPETE
tion and drive off bidders, so as to get
the road at the minimum bid OF this
there is no proof During the evening
Of the day before the sale, in converse
ton with those who were interested in
the foreclosure. the attorney of the COM
mittee stated that he was prepared
TO bid up to a sufficient sum to pay the
first consolidated mortgage bonds in
full This was a fact. and he was un-
der no obligation to conceal it.
The only question before us is whether
the associated bondholders or their COM
mittee have so acted towards the petit
toner as to give him the equity he is
attempting TO assert against them.
The other point urged in behalf of
the petitioner, is that he is entitled to
set up his surrendered bonds of the
mortgage Of 1868. The mortgage Of 1868
was made to secure an issue OF bonds
amounting to 10000 sterling, all
of which, except bonds to the value of
about $4,000, had been surrendered and
cancelled, and the first consolidated
mortgage bonds issued in lieu thereof
These exchanges were made in good
faith, and it is difficult to see upon
what ground the court below could have
been asked to set aside the transaction.
by the 18TH clause of the foreclosure
decree. passed November %. 1892, il was
adjudged that the fund arising from the
sale should be applied 10 the payment
Of costs and the two prior mortgages
i'm full and the balance TO the payment
of costs, and the two prior mortgages
Of the first consolidated mortgage bonds
in full, if sufficient; if not. then pro rata.
The petitioner with all the other first
consolidated bondholders is entitled to
that distribution and he failed TO show
grounds upon which the Circuit Court
could have granted him more.