David Josiah Brewer

Name: Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court
Author: David Josiah Brewer

Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by David Josiah Brewer. It explores elements such as mortgage, lien and railroad.

Quotes from Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court (David Josiah Brewer)

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ The owner of a majority of the stock in a railroad corporation has no title to the road. The title is in the corporation, and he is not the corporation. A mortgage by the owner of such stock is no lien upon the road, and does not prevent the casting of any legal lien upon it. So that while, for the many equitable reasons stated in the opinion, the decree vested the property in the latter road in the defendant railroad company, yet it perfected and transferred that title, subject to all legal liens then existing upon it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ The record imparted notice to Hamilton, and to all others, of the fact and terms of the mortgage; and the question is thus presented, whether a railroad company, mortgagor, can, three years after creating by recorded mortgage an express lien upon its property, be contract with a third party displace the priority of the mortgage lien. It would seem that the question admits of but a single answer. Certainly, as to ordinary real estate, no one would have the hardihood to contend that it could be done, and there is in this respect no difference between ordinary real estate and railroad property. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ On review in the court of errors and appeals, as reported in 29 N. J. Eq., supra, the decision of the chancellor was sustained, the court saying: 'Until that decree was signed, the right of the complainant in the lands of the Sea-Shore Company under his mortgage was a mere unexecuted equity, to have the benefit of such equities as his mortgagor had in the premises, without any legal title in himself or in his mortgagor upon which his mortgage as a conveyance could operate. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ Neither did the fact of the construction of the dock, and the consequent improvement of the mortgaged property, give, as reported by the master, to Hamilton an equitable lien prior in right to the lien of the mortgage, or furnish equitable reasons why the legal priority belonging to the mortgage should be displaced. It is true cases have arisen in which, upon equitable reasons, the priority of a mortgage debt has been displaced in favor of even unsecured subsequent creditors. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ The equitable principles upon which the decisions rest, applying to the payment, out of the proceeds of the sale of railroad property, of such debts for operating expenses and necessary repairs, are not applicable to claims such as the present, accrued for the original construction of a railroad while there was a subsisting mortgage upon it. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ A recorded mortgage, given by a railroad company on its road-bed and other property, creates a lien whose priority cannot be displaced thereafter, directly by a mortgage given by the company, nor indirectly by a contract between the company and a third party for the erection of buildings or other works of original construction. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ Thomas H. Hamilton, appellee, intervened, and filed his petition, claiming a mechanic's lien. On March 20, May 9, and June 2, 1883, respectively, he had entered into three several contracts with the railroad company for the erection of a dock on the Maumee river, in the city of Toledo. Under these contracts he had built the dock, and, receiving only partial payment, had filed a claim for a mechanic's lien for the balance. The lot on which the dock was built was a part of the railroad property covered by the first mortgage above referred to. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

David Josiah Brewer, Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court

“ And, even in that part of the testimony which tends to show that work was done after the appointment of a receiver, there is nothing to indicate how much was done, or whether it was done by the authority and direction of the receiver, or simply in completion of a cot ract theretofore entered into with the company. These are all the facts we deem it necessary to mention. ”

David Josiah Brewer

Summary

Quotes from Toledo Company v. Hamilton — Opinion of the Court (David Josiah Brewer)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature