142 U.S. 313 | SCOTUS | 1892
SUNFLOWER OIL COMPANY
v.
WILSON.
SAME
v.
SAME.
Supreme Court of United States.
*318 Mr. John W. Cutrer and Mr. William D. Cutrer for appellant.
Mr. Holmes Cummins and Mr. Edward Mayes, for appellee submitted on their brief.
*320 MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
(1) This case turns upon the construction of the contract of October 6, 1883, between the Sunflower Oil Company and the Mobile and Northwestern Railway Company, the substantial provisions of which were that the oil company should purchase of a manufacturer certain rolling stock, which it should lease to the railway company at a rent equal to 8 per cent upon the cost price, the latter agreeing to purchase the same of the oil company on or before January 1, 1886, and pay for it in cash, with a proviso that, in case it should be unable to purchase the same, it should turn it over to the oil company in good order and condition, at the expiration of the contract.
*321 There is no doubt of the general proposition that mere inability to pay is no defence to the performance of a contract, or to a promise to pay. A person making purchase of an article is conclusively presumed to intend to pay for it, and to have had his ability to pay in contemplation when he made the purchase; and, if this proviso had not been inserted, no doubt could have arisen regarding the proper interpretation of this contract. But here was a contingency carefully introduced into this contract, upon the happening of which the railway company was to be discharged of its obligation to the oil company by returning to it the rolling stock in good order and condition. We are bound to assume that this provision was inserted for some purpose, and are bound to give it its proper effect. At the time the contract was entered into, the railway company was financially embarrassed; its only locomotive had been crippled beyond repair; and it had neither money nor credit with which to purchase another. In this extremity it entered into negotiations with the oil company, which was itself desirous of increasing its facilities for obtaining cotton seed, and a monopoly of that article along the line of said road. But in making the advance necessary to secure the requisite amount of rolling stock, the oil company naturally sought to protect itself in every possible way against loss. This it did, (1) By retaining to itself the title and ownership of such rolling stock until the same should be fully paid for: (2) By leasing it to the road at a rental equal to 8 per cent upon the value of the property: (3) By retaining the freights due the road for carriage of cotton seed, and crediting them, first, upon the rent, and, second, upon the purchase price of the property: (4) By providing for the return of the property in good order and condition, in case the road was unable to purchase the same for cash by January 1, 1886, subsequently extended to January 1, 1887. The last was a proviso doubtless inserted out of abundant caution, in order to put beyond question the return of the property in case the road should fail to pay for it in full before the expiration of the contract. Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to give these words any other than their ordinary meaning, viz., that if the *322 railway company became so deeply involved as to be unable to pay its current debts in the ordinary course of business, it should be released from its obligation upon returning the property. In ordinary speech, a person is said to be unable to make a purchase when he has neither money nor credit sufficient for that purpose, though the entire value of his assets may be greater than the purchase price of the property. It is unnecessary to decide, however, whether the proviso in question created a mere option, or whether anything less than the total insolvency of the company constituted an inability to purchase within the meaning of the contract, since the appointment of a receiver at the suit of bondholders seems to be most conclusive evidence of inability to carry out its contracts, and, indeed, to have been the very contingency contemplated in the proviso. It is unnecessary even to decide whether this inability to purchase could be asserted at all by the railway company, since the defence in this case is set up by the receiver acting in the interest of all the creditors, and claiming that, in view of the insolvency of the company, the oppressive character of the contract and the greatly reduced price at which he could secure similar property, payment ought not to be compelled from the funds in his hands.
The receiver did not simply by virtue of his appointment become liable upon the covenants and agreements of the railway company. High on Receivers, § 273; Hoyt v. Stoddard, 2 Allen, 442. Upon taking possession of the property, he was entitled to a reasonable time to elect whether he would adopt this contract and make it his own, or whether he would insist upon the inability of the company to pay, and return the property in good order and condition, paying, of course, the stipulated rental for it so long as he used it. Turner v. Richardson, 7 East, 335; Commonwealth v. Franklin Insurance Co., 115 Mass. 278; Sparhawk v. Yerkes, ante, 1. Of course, if he elects to take property subject to a condition, he is bound to perform the condition before he can obtain title to the property. He may, however, decline to assume this obligation, and return the property to the purchaser, upon complying with the terms of the contract with respect to such return. The case is not *323 unlike that of Express Company v. Railroad Company, 99 U.S. 191. In that case the express company agreed to loan the railroad company $20,000 upon its notes, to be expended in repairs and equipments. In consideration of this the railroad company agreed to provide the necessary privileges and facilities for the transaction of all the business of the express company over its road; and to charge a certain sum for transportation, which was to be credited monthly toward the payment of the loan, with a proviso that if the loan were not paid within a year, the contract should continue in force for a further period, or until the whole had been repaid. A mortgage upon the road having been foreclosed, the receiver repudiated the contract, forbade the express company from further using the cars of the railroad company, unless upon conditions whereby the contract was virtually surrendered or ignored, and the express company was compelled to abandon the road, although the money loaned, with a portion of the interest thereon, was still due and unpaid. It filed a bill for specific performance, alleging that the railroad company having conveyed away its property, and being in part insolvent, the violation of the contract could not be compensated by any damages that might be recovered at law. This court dismissed the bill, holding that, as the plaintiff had no lien, and the contract was simply for the transportation of persons and property, the court could not require either a specific performance by the receiver, or the satisfaction of the plaintiff's demand by money; and that the express company had, therefore, no standing in a court of equity.
The case of Coe v. New Jersey Midland Railway, 27 N.J. Eq., (12 C.E. Green,) 37, is also instructive in this connection. In that case, the Rhode Island Locomotive Works Company entered into an agreement with the railway company to furnish the latter certain locomotives and tenders, as upon lease, but with the agreement that, upon payment in full of the rent reserved, they should become the property of the railway. The rent was payable in instalments, for which the company gave its notes; at the time of the appointment of the receiver there was due for rent about $120,000; and the locomotives *324 were then in possession of the receiver and in use upon the road. Petitioners based their claim to relief upon the ground that the receiver requested them to leave the locomotives in his possession, for use on the road, he guaranteeing to keep them in good order, and promising to apply for authority to pay the claim. In defence, the receiver alleged a notice by bondholders not to pay the rent or deliver the certificates therefor, which had been issued upon his application, because the property was not worth the amount agreed to be paid, and it was not for the interest of the trust that the rent should be paid. It was held that petitioners had no equity arising from the conduct of the receiver to have the contract specifically performed, without regard to the advantage or disadvantage of the trust fund; that although they appeared to be willing up to the time they were warned not to do so, to pay for the property according to the agreement, it might have been an improvident act on their part; that the fact that the receiver had applied for leave to issue the certificates to pay the rent did not bind them; and that the court would not grant the prayer of the petitioners until satisfied that it was for the interest of the trust that it should be done; but that the petitioners would be allowed just compensation for the use of the property while held by the receiver.
(2) Notwithstanding the absence of a provision in the contract forfeiting payments already made, in case of failure to complete the purchase, it is open to doubt whether an action at common law would lie to recover such payments. The courts of Massachusetts, Maine and Illinois hold that partial payments are forfeited; while those of Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota and Georgia hold that, upon equitable grounds, the buyer is entitled to a return of the money. There seems to be no doubt, however, that a court of equity may require the return of the money paid, less the amount of any damage sustained to the property, and a reasonable compensation for the use of the same, particularly if there be a clause in the contract providing that upon a certain contingency the property shall be returned to the seller.
(3) Under the circumstances of this case, and in view of the *325 fact that a court of equity takes jurisdiction of all questions with respect to this property as ancillary to its jurisdiction over the main case, the dismissal of the intervening petition does not necessarily involve a dismissal of the cross-petition, and the court, having jurisdiction of the entire proceeding, may proceed to do complete justice between the parties.
(4) In the view we have taken of this case, it is unnecessary to consider whether the manifestly illegal stipulations in this contract had the effect of vitiating the entire agreement. It bears evidence upon its face of having been extorted from the necessities of the railway company, and contains many provisions which fail to commend it to the consideration of a court of equity.
There is no practical distinction between these two appeals. By his order of appointment, the receiver was authorized to take possession of the money and assets and all other rights and property of the railway company, wherever the same might be found, including its equitable interests, things in action, and other effects; and he is as much entitled to recover moneys due upon contracts made with the railway company as with himself. No question arises with regard to the rights of other creditors, as was the case in Galveston Railroad v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459; American Bridge Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U.S. 798; and Gilman v. Telegraph Co., 91 U.S. 603; and as between the railway company and the receiver the latter was entitled to the money, subject to any valid set-off of the oil company.
There was no error in the disposition of either of these two cases by the court below, and both decrees are, therefore,
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE LAMAR was not present at the argument and took no part in the decision of this case.