Court Opinion

ID: 8842875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 16:47:36.791421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:15.538837
License: Public Domain

Pardee, J.
The case on this intervention is the same in pleadings, master’s report, exceptions, and assignments of errors as the case of Central Trust Co. v. Marietta & N. G. Ry. Co. (Hiawassee Co., Intervener,') 48 Fed. Rep. 850, (just decided,) except that the appellee, Groome, was the original vendor of the rolling stock in question to the North Georgia Improvement Company, and in his contract retained the title until pay*865ment of the purchase price should be fully made, and that the North Georgia Improvement Company has not paid the entire purchase price, some $5,500 of the original $22,500 being still due and unpaid; and the appellee, Groome, shows a written contract for the resale of the "property to him by the North Georgia Improvement Company, made since his first intervention claiming the rolling stock in controversy was filed. The case is, however, to be distinguished from the Hiuwasm Case in this: that Groome was not charged with any notice of the equities existing in favor of bondholders as against Eager or the North Georgia Improvement Company, and he made a conditional sale of his property, retaining the title thereto to the North Georgia Improvement Company, who transferred it, without paying the full price, to the Marietta & North Georgia Railway Company. We think it is clear that the appellee, Groome, has never forfeited his rights under his original contract, and that ho is now entitled to a return of the property, or to the payment of the balance of the price still due. We do not think that Groome took anything by the contract with the North Georgia Improvement Company for the resale of the property, as that company (as we have seen in the Hiawassee Case) was estopped from setting up title against the bondholders. As the master reported that the use of the rolling stock in question was necessary to the operation of the railway in possession of the receiver, the receiver should pay the balance of the purchase price still due to appellee, or give up the property. On the other points involved, we -will hold as in the Hiawassee Case. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decision appealed from be reversed, with costs, and that this cause be remanded to the circuit court, with instructions to enter an order directing the receiver to pay, within 15 days from date thereof, the balance due to intervener, Samuel W. Groome, on his contract for the sale to the North Georgia Improvement Company of the rolling stock described in his intervention; and, in case of inability to pay as directed, the receiver shall deliver the’property.