Imágenes de páginas

Opinion of the Court.

If we analyze this document, we find that, like the first agreement, it treats of the entire property, freehold as well as leasehold, and instead of providing for an absolute sale, transfers the leases of the leasehold, with privilege of purchase, and leases the fee-simple part, with like privilege of purchase ; the consideration, as before, being the same amount, $170,000, namely, $93,000 for the lot held by Robbins in fee simple, $35,000 to be paid to clear off the mortgages, and $42,000 to be paid to the owners of the four leasehold lots.

Looking at the agreement in parts, we find :

1st. Robbins, for and in consideration of the rents, covenants, and agreements to be paid and performed by the parties of the second part, assigns to them the leases of the four leasehold lots, with all the rights and privileges conferred thereby; and leases to them the lot held by him in fee simple for the term of ten years, at a rent of $600 per month.

2d. The parties of the second part, on their side, covenant and agree to pay the said monthly rent above stipulated, and the incumbrances of record against the said property, or any portion thereof, specifying the two deeds of trust for $10,000 and $25,000; and further agree, that they will exercise the several privileges of purchasing in fee simple the leasehold lots, by paying the several amounts provided in the leases, namely, [amounting in the aggregate to $42,000]; and further, to pay all taxes, and assessments to be levied on the property or any portion thereof.

Suppose the paper had ended here, could there have been à doubt that the payments to be made by the parties of the second part, namely, the reserved rent, the $35,000 for clearing off the mortgages, and the $42,000 for buying in the fee (for themselves) of the leasehold property, constituted the consideration of the lease and assignment made to them by Robbins in the first clause? The parties evidently regarded the privilege of purchasing the four leased lots on F Street for $42,000 as a valuable one. It does not seem at all improbable that Robbins should demand, and that the parties of the second part should be willing to give, $35,000 (the amount of his mortgages) for this privilege. This would make the four

Opinion of the Court.

lots cost them $77,000. If Robbins's 4000 square feet on Seventh Street were worth $93,000, it is not unreasonable to sup pose the 8900 square feet fronting on F Street, and lying in the rear of the other, and almost necessary to it, should be worth $77,000. The remaining parts of the agreement are not in conflict with the construction suggested. In the next place,

3d. Robbins gives to the parties of the second part the privilege of purchasing his fee-simple lot at any time during the ten years' lease for the sum of $93,000.

4th. The agreement then provides that Robbins shall pay all interest, rents, taxes, and assessments up to the 1st of November, 1873; and it was further agreed, that if the second party should have to pay any sums of money which Robbins, under the agreement, ought to pay, they should be a lien on the property.

5th. It was provided that if any of the buildings should fall in repairing, etc., the second party should be released from the contract and refunded the amounts paid by them.

6th. It was agreed that if the second party should not exercise their option of buying Robbins's fee-simple property, he should for one year after the expiration of the ten years' term have the privilege of buying them out by refunding all payments they might have made.

Now, none of these provisional exigencies took place. The parties of the second part did not exercise their option of buying Robbins's fee-simple property; nor did he exercise his option of buying them out; and the buildings never fell. In all other respects both parties performed their respective parts of the agreement; Robbins paid all interest, taxes, rents, etc., up to November 1st, 1873, and paid off the $10,500 judgment lien on the leasehold property; and the parties of the second part and their successors in interest, The German-American Savings Bank and The German-American National Bank, paid the rent of $600 per month, paid off the two mortgages or deeds of trust, amounting together to $35,000, and all interest thereon, paid the rents of the leasehold lots, and bought in the fee simple thereof from the owners, at the stipulated amount of $42,000. So that, at the close of the transaction, the parties

[ocr errors][merged small]

Opinion of the Court.

stood as follows: Robbins owned his old fee-simple lot on the corner of Seventh and F streets, and the complainant, who purchased the interest of the other parties, owned the four lots on F Street.

This is the whole case; and we can hardly entertain a doubt respecting the rights of the parties. We think that the court below was in error in sustaining and allowing against Robbins the complainant's claim for the payment of the two mortgages or deeds of trust, and subrogating him to the rights of the mortgagees, Low and The Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company. The deed of subrogation from the latter company to The German-American Savings Bank was entirely wrong and unauthorized, and should be vacated and declared void. Had a cross-bill been filed for that purpose, it should have been so decreed. Remedy can be had by an original bill.

The contract contains no stipulation whatever that the parties of the second part were in any event to have a return of the $35,000 paid in lifting the two mortgages, except in the event of Robbins availing himself of his option to have a conveyance of the whole property -- an event which never took place. We cannot interpolate such a stipulation. It is not implied by anything that appears on the face of the contract; nor does anything in the surrounding circumstances authorize or require a construction of the contract that would import such a stipulation into it. The first agreement made with Hitz seems to us to have an entirely opposite effect.

On all the other points raised in the case, we think that the views of the court below were correct. The decision is reversed and the cause remanded with direc

tions to dismiss the bill of complaint with costs.

[blocks in formation]

The appointment by a Circuit Court of the United States of a receiver of

a corporation organized under the laws of a State does not deprive a court of the State of jurisdiction to hear and determine an application for a mandamus directing a recorder of mortgages in the State to cancel and erase from the books of his office an inscription against property of the petitioner in favor of the corporation, the petition describing it as a

mortgage on real estate, and setting forth the interest of the corporation. This court questions the opinion of the Supreme Court of Louisiana that

the Circuit Court of the United States would have no anthority to order the erasure of an incumbrance from a mortgage book within the

State. The copies of orders made in this cause by the Circuit Court of the State

after the entry of the final judgment to which the writ of error from the Supreme Court of the State was directed, although annexed to the petition for that writ, were too late in the cause to constitnte a ground for importing a federal question into it.

This was a petition for a mandamus, addressed to a state court of the State of Louisiana. The Supreme Court of the State, to which the case was brought by writ of error, ordered the writ to issue. The federal question is stated in the opinion,

Mr. Joseph P. Hornor and Mr. Francis W. Baker for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. B. F. Jonas for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

This case arose upon a petition filed in the Civil District Court for the parish of Orleans, January 23d, 1884, by Lanaux, the defendant in error, praying for a mandamus against Eugene May, the recorder of mortgages for the same parish, commanding him to cancel and erase from the books of his

Opinion of the Court.

office all inscriptions against certain property of the petitioner in favor of The Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana, particularly certain inscriptions designated in the petition as being those of a mortgage on three certain lots in New Orleans, dated June 6th, 1843, given to secure the payment of a subscription for fifteen shares of the capital stock of the company, of $500 each. The State of Louisiana, through its Attorney General, the Consolidated Association of the Planters of Louisiana, through its liquidators, and Henry Denis and others, holders of bonds of the State, secured by pledge of the mortgage above mentioned, were made parties to the proceeding. The interest of the collateral parties arose in this way: The mortgage was originally given by one Lebau to secure the payment of his subscription for the fifteen shares of stock, and, with the like mortgages of other subscribers, and the other assets of the corporation, was pledged by the company to the State, as security for paying certain bonds, issued by the State in favor and aid of the company. Hence the interest of the State. The other parties were holders of these bonds of the State, and claimed to be subrogated to its rights. The petitioner alleged that by an act of the Legislature of Louisiana, passed in 1847, and by the action of the liquidators of the company, (which had become insolvent,) the stockholders were called upon to contribute $102 per share, as a fund to meet the obligations of the State, payable in yearly instalments of $6 each for the period of seventeen years; and that all these instalments had been paid on the fifteen shares secured by the mortgage in question. The petitioner further stated that in the case of The Association v. Lord, one of the stockholders in consimili casu, 35 La. Ann. 425, the Supreme Court of Louisiana had decided that the payment of the said instalments discharged the obligations of the stockholders both as to the subscription and mortgage. He further stated that the mortgage kept his lots out of commerce, and that he had no adequate relief except by mandamus to the recorder.

Prior to the filing of this petition, the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana had

« AnteriorContinuar »