Tennessee and Alabama Central Railroad Company v. Orr
APPEAL from the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Orr, a citizen of Mississippi, suing for himself and in behalf of all others, holders of bonds of the county of Limestone, in the State of Alabama (secured by a certain mortgage hereinafter specifically described and which the bill set forth), who might come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit, filed a bill in the court below against the said county and 'The Nashville and Decatur Railroad Company,' both corporations of Alabama.
The bill set forth that in the year 1853 a railroad company, under the name of 'The Tennessee and Alabama Central Railroad Company,' was incorporated by the legislature of Alabama for the purpose of making and working a railroad within the limits of Limestone County; a further purpose of the incorporation being, however, that the railroad thus incorporated might be connected and ultimately consolidated with railroads in Tennessee; that in 1855 the legislature of Alabama authorized the county of Limestone to subscribe $200,000 to the stock of the said company, and in payment thereof to issue and deliver to the company the bonds of the county to that amount; that the county did issue and deliver such bonds; that in 1858 the company was authorized by the legislature to sell the said bonds, and for the purpose of securing their redemption, to mortgage all its property and franchises; that on the 29th of July, 1858, the company did execute such mortgage, and sold and assigned the said bonds to various persons, and among others to the complainant to the amount of $10,000; that the mortgage, dated as just said, was made between the railroad company on the one part and James McDonald, James Sloss, Booth Jones, and twelve other persons, including the complainant, all named specifically in the mortgage (and in the recital of it given in the bill) and holders, all of them, of the bonds intended to be secured by the mortgage; that the mortgage, after reciting the debts due to each of the said persons, the amounts, manner in which the debt accrued, granted, bargained, and sold all the land which made the bed of the road and its appurtenances to the said James McDonald, James Sloss, Booth Jones, and the twelve others, including the complainant, as security to each person for the payment to each of the bonds held by him; that the complainant, now, at the time of filing his bill, remained the owner of about $6500 of them, of which both the interest and principal remained unpaid; that in 1866 and 1867 'The Tennessee and Alabama Central Railroad Company' was consolidated with order railroad companies, and that the consolidation became known as 'The Nashville and Decatur Railroad Company,' and that the property and assets of the former company passed into the hands of the latter; that the complainant presented his bonds for payment to the proper authorities of Limestone County, in 1866, and that payment was refused; and that 'The Nashville and Decatur Railroad Company,' though fully aware of the default of the county, neglected and refused to provide for the payment of the bonds, and that the rights and interests of the bondholders were greatly endangered. The prayer of the bill was for an account, for a decree requiring the company to pay the amount that should be found to be due to the complainant, for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and the sale of the mortgaged property.
The county of Limestone failed to appear, and a decree pro confesso was taken against it. 'The Nashville and Decatur Railroad Company' appeared, and demurred for want of proper parties and other causes. The court below overruled the demurrer, and considering, on certain pleas put in, that the case was with the complainant, decreed a sale of the road, &c., unless, within a time named, the company paid the amount due on the complainant's bonds.
On appeal here the question was whether the demurrer was rightfully overruled for want of proper parties.
Mr. R. T. Merrick, for the appellant; no opposing counsel.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.