George Shiras, Jr.

Name: Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court
Author: George Shiras, Jr.

Summary

“Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by George Shiras, Jr.. It explores elements such as Compton, decree and mortgage.

Quotes from Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court (George Shiras, Jr.)

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ We think it quite plain that Compton is the only party having an interest in, and a right to enforce, the decree of the Ohio supreme court. The provision contained therein assessing the amount of his claim at the amount of the bonds held by him shows that the decree was intended to operate solely for his benefit; and the direction that the proceeds of sale should be brought into court, to abide its further order on the footing of the decree, is the order usually made when a sale is made by an officer appointed by the court. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ It is true that the form in which the first question is put in the certificate would seem to go on the assumption that Compton's only right is to redeem, and that the disputable matter is whether the redemption is to cover as well the Indiana as the Ohio Division. In the view, however, that we take of the subject, we prefer to read the certificate as propounding the question of the real meaning and effect of the decree of sale as affecting Compton's rights, and to thus enable the circuit court of appeals to finally determine the controversy. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ Any inconvenience that would be occasioned by a resale of a portion of the entire line can be avoided by complying with the decree and making payment accordingly. If the Wabash Railroad Company be regarded simply as an outside purchaser, it cannot be heard to object to the terms of the decree of sale. If-what is apparently its real character-it be regarded as a company formed by an arrangement between the parties controlling the sale, it has even less right to disregard the rights of Compton as stipulated for in the decree. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ Compton also claimed in his answer that his bonds were a first lien upon certain terminals of the defendant company at Toledo, on the ground that the Ohio divisional mortgage did not cover this property. The court below adjudged that Compton had a valid lien on the Ohio and Indiana Lines by virtue of the Ohio decree, but denied his right to a first lien on the Toledo terminals, or to a separate sale of the Ohio Line, and declined to afford him any relief but that of redeeming the four divisional mortgages, two on the Ohio Line and two on the Indiana Line, by the payment of about $8,000,000. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ By the decree of sale the purchaser of the Ohio part, Boody, took subject to the first mortgage. Boody conveyed the Ohio Division to a new Ohio corporation, organized with power to construct, maintain, and operate a road from Toledo to the Indiana state line, and called the Toledo & Wabash Railroad Company. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ Such, certainly, is the general rule when property is redeemed, either by the mortgagor, or by a junior incumbrancer having a right to redeem, and we see no reason why that rule should not be applied in a case like the present. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ The pleadings in the court below are quite confusing, and do not seem to have been prepared or filed with much care to keep separate the jurisdictions of the circuit courts of the three districts in which the litigation was pending. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ The sale of Joy and associates in Ohio was subject to the Humphreys and Lindley mortgage, the Knox and Jesup mortgage, the Compton lien, if any he had, and the Ohio divisional mortgages. While the railroad in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio was still in the hands of the receivers, Knox and Jesup began the proceeding in which this appeal was taken, by filing bill against the Wabash, St. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

George Shiras, Jr., Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court

“ It was the result of a consolidation of separate railroads,-one in Ohio, one in Indiana, three or four in Illinois, and one or more in Missouri. First, the Ohio and Indiana companies were consolidated; then, the companies east of the Mississippi river; and finally, in 1880, all of them were united in the Wabash, St. ”

George Shiras, Jr.

Summary

Quotes from Compton v. Jesup — Opinion of the Court (George Shiras, Jr.)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature