15 F. 763 | D. Ind. | 1883
No lien of any kind existed in favor of the holders of the equipment bonds prior to the consolidation in 1865. It cannot be disputed that before this consolidation, which was authorized.
Was there anything in the terms of the consolidation of I860 that gave to the holders of the equipment bonds a security or lien which they had not before ? Did the consolidated company take the property and franchises of the Toledo & Wabash Company with an incumbrance which did not rest upon them before ?
It was competent for the constituent companies to agree upon their own terms of consolidation provided they were not in violation of the statute authorizing consolidation. The property and rights of the Toledo & Wabash Company, at the time of the consolidation, were estimated to be worth $10,000,000. Part of the consideration for the transfer of this property to the consolidated company was the payment of the $600,000 of equipment bonds. The consolidation agreement contains the following:
“ It is further agreed that tho bonds and other debts herein above specified and not otherwise provided for in this agreement shall, as to the principal and interest thereon, as the same shall respectively fall due, be protected by tho consolidated company according to the true meaning and effect of the instruments or bonds by which such indebtedness of the several consolidating companies may be evidenced.”
The equipment bonds are embraced in the schedule of bonds and debts referred to in this clause. The agreement to pay these bonds as part of the purchase price of the property put into the consolida
When the consideration for conveyance of property is the payment by the vendee of the debt of a third person, a lien exists upon the property conveyed for the benefit of such third person. Nichols v. Glover, 41 Ind. 24; Story, Eq. 1244; Clyde v. Simpson, 4 Ohio St. 445; Vanmeters v. Vanmeters, 3 Grat. 148; Harris v. Fly, 7 Paige, 421; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige, 15.
It was no doubt the intention of the legislature in passing the statute authorizing the consolidation of railroad companies that the consolidated company should be substituted for the constituent companies and that the unsecured indebtedness of the latter should remain unsecured indebtedness of the former. While this is the result of a consolidation under the statute, as already stated, the consolidation may be on such terms a.s suit the contracting parties, provided these terms do not violate the statute. One of the stipulations of the consolidation agreement was payment by the consolidated company of the equipment bonds. The language of this part of the agreement, considered in connection with the terms and recitals of the consolidated mortgage, the consolidation agreement of 1868, the deed of further assurance and the prompt payment of interest on the equipment bonds, semi-annually as it became due for eight years after 1865, shows, that something more wa's intended than the mere assumption of an unsecured indebtedness. ■ The proceeds of the equipment bonds had been expended in the betterment of the property of the Toledo & Wabash Company; that company was to pass out of existence, and its entire property was to become part of the possessions of the consolidated company. Eor this reason, it may have been thought just to the owners of equipment bonds that they should have security in the nature of a lien on the property superior to any rights that might thereafter be acquired. We may assume that it was well understood by all the parties to the consolidation agreement of 1865 that the consolidated company, by the mere force of the statute which authorized its creation, was bound to pay all the debts of the constituent companies. No one understands that better than the counsel who drew up the consolidation agreement. If nothing more was contemplated by the clause quoted from this agreement than a promise to pay the equipment bonds as unsecured indebtedness, why was the word “protect” used? If the counsel of the defendants are correct in their interpretation of that
The Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Company now owns and operates the property which the Toledo, Wabash & Western Company acquired from the Toledo & Wabash Company, and denies its liability on the equipment bonds. There is nothing to prevent the holders of these bonds from asserting against the present owners of this property the equitable lien which they were entitled to under the consolidation agreement of I860. All subsequent interests have been acquired with knowledge of this agreement.
These are briefly my reasons for holding that the equipment bonds are a charge upon the property now owned by the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Company, which originally belonged to the Toledo & Wabash Company.
A decree will be entered declaring such a charge, and for accrued interest.
The case would have been decided at an earlier day hut for a statement made by the complainant’s counsel that the matter in dispute might be amicably adjusted.
Motion for rehearing, argued before Justice Harlan and Judge Woods, was denied, and decree ordered to be entered in accordance with Judge Gresham’s decision.