Case Name: LAURENCE R. LEVY, RESPONDENT, v. ATLANTIC CITY AND SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-01-31
Citations: 103 N.J.L. 401
Docket Number: 
Parties: LAURENCE R. LEVY, RESPONDENT, v. ATLANTIC CITY AND SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 103
Pages: 401–402

Head Matter:
LAURENCE R. LEVY, RESPONDENT, v. ATLANTIC CITY AND SHORE RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Argued October 22, 1926
Decided January 31, 1927.
For the respondent, Cole & Cole.
For the appellant, Bourgeois & Coulomb.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Minturn, J.
The respondent is the owner of ten coupon bonds, issued by the defendant company, of the denomination of $1,000 each, to which were attached coupons payable every six months. The bonds were sold by the company as part of an issue of $950,000 secured by its trust mortgage, dated December, 1905, which is held by the trustee named therein, the Girard Trust Company, of Philadelphia. Payment of the coupons has been in default, and the suit was instituted to recover the amount due upon one hundred and ninety coupons at $25 each. These facts were stipulated by respective counsel, and the case, upon the uncontroverted facts, was heard by the court, without a jury, and judgment rendered for the amount claimed, with interest, from which judgment this appeal has been taken.
The single contention urged as a basis at the trial, and reiterated upon this appeal, is that the Mortgage act of 1881 (Comp. Stab., p. 3421, § 48), as well as the provisions of the mortgage itself, apply so as to prevent the institution of an action at law to recover the amount of the maturing detached coupons.
We think the case is res judicata, the same question having been determined by this court in Fidelity Mutual Co. v. Wilkes-Barre and Hazelton Railroad Co., 98 N. J. L. 507, where we held upon a factual status substantially similar that the coupon was an independent obligation, and that the holder was entitled to payment thereof according to its terms. The direction of the learned trial court was therefore legally correct.
The judgment will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, McGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.