Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/398

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

886 FEDEBAIi REPORTER. �for the court to do so. The receivers must take care of the property — do what is absolutely neoessary to preserve it for the benefit of the creditors ; and I am unable to see that the power which the court is asked to exercise is pertinent to any such purpose, and, therefore, without stating any more in detail the reasons which have led me to that conclusion, it is Bufficient for me to say that such is the impression I have now, and I must refuse the application. Petition refused." ���Taylor V. The Philadei.phia & Reading Railroad Co. and others.* �McCai,mont t». The Philadelphia & Reading Raii,road Co. and others. �(Cireuit Court, E. S. Pennsylvania. April 21, 1881.) �1. CoBPOKATiON— Railroad— Ui.TRA Yiebb— Power to Borrow Money �—Issue op Irrbdebmable Bonds— Obligations Extitli*g Holder �TO fHARB ONt,T IN PROFITS. �Under an autliority to borrow money a railroad company has no right to raise money by the issue of irredeemab!e bonds entitling the holder merely to a share of the earnings after the payment of a cer- tain dividend to the stockholders. �2. SAMB — MORTGAGE TO SeCURE PbBPETUAL BoNDS. �Nor has it the right to issue interest-bearing bonds, secured by mortgage, if a portion of such bonds are perpetuai. �3. Samb. �A railroad company, after insolvency and appointment of receiv- ers, adopted a plan by which, in order to pay the floating debt, income bonds were to be issued and sold entitling the holder to a certain div- idend and share in the profits after payment of a dividend to stock- holders ; and, in order to retire and pay the mortgage debts of the company, bonds secured by a new mortgage for the whole amount oi such debts were to be executed, some of which were to be payable in 50 years, and the others to be perpetuai. Hdd, that in the absence of express legislative authority the issue of such obligations was beyond the power of the company, and would be restrained by injunction al the suit of stookliolders. �♦Repoited by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �