Court Opinion

ID: 9417809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:39:13.611186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:51.062033
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White
dissenting.
As I comprehend the record, the rails for which preferential payment is now allowed did not serve the purpose of ordinary repair and maintenance of the tracks in which they were la!id. . Moreover, my understanding of the proof is that it obviously shows there was no' surplus revenue at any time legally applicable to the claim now allowed, and hence that no .such revenue was diverted to the benefit of the foreclosing mortgage ■creditors during either of the receiverships by way of betterments or otherwisé. ■ Moreover, I think the proof is clear that, conceding every possible expense which can be claimed- to have been a betterment or in any wise to have' inured- to the benefit of the, foreclosing mortgage creditors, nevertheless as such mortgage creditors have contributed to the payment of the general creditors,.by the assumption of receivers’ certificates and cash contributions, a sum largely in excess of the amount of such payments for assumed betterments, etc., the mortgage creditors are entitled to credit for their ad van des, and therefore there would be*a large balance in their favor. In effect, to state the presumed betterments and charge them against the foreclosing mortgage creditors without referring to or taking into account their contributions, is to charge them for betterments for which they have already paid. St. Louis, Alton &c. Railroad v. Cleveland, Columbus &c. Railway, 125 U. S. 658.
I therefore dissent.
Mr. Justice Brewer, not having heard the argument in this case, did not participate in the decision.