Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company…

How can you-in the case of a road two hundred miles in length, a road which is one of the great roads of the Continent, one on which rolling stock must, of course, be used in values of hundreds of thousands of dollars-assert that but forty box cars belong to its Western and largest division, while all the rest are attached as a fixture fastened down immovably to its Eastern?
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company…

Now, all the mortgages cover in express terms the rolling stock of the road. The language in each mortgage is much the same, literally. In spirit and legal effect it is all the same, exactly. There can be no doubt that the descriptions were copied the one from the other, and that in making the several mortgages the same identical rolling stock was intended to be conveyed, to wit, the rolling stock of the La Crosse and Milwaukie Company used on its road.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Minnesota Company v. St. Paul Company…

The marshal, however, who was directed to make the sale instead of a master commissioner, did sell all the rolling stock, and that sale was confirmed by the order of the District Court of May 5, 1863.
It is too clear for argument, that a sale by the marshal, unauthorized by the decree, is without any validity. Does the order of the court confirming the sale make it valid?
Upon principle the question is by no means free from difficulty. We are clear that a sale without a decree to sustain it would be a nullity, and we doubt if a court can make it valid by a mere general order of confirmation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature