Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co.

120 U.S. 649 (1887)

PORTER
v.
PITTSBURG BESSEMER STEEL COMPANY.

Supreme Court of United States.

Submitted January 7, 1887. Decided March 21, 1887. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF INDIANA.

Mr. J.E. McDonald, Mr. John M. Butler, Mr. A.L. Mason, Mr. O. Peckham, and Mr. R.B.F. Pierce for appellant.

Mr. A.C. Harris, Mr. W.H. Calkins, Mr. John S. Cooper, and Mr. E.W. Tolerton for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD, after stating the facts as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

It it alleged that the Circuit Court erred in decreeing the several claims of these five appellees to be liens on the railroad and property of the original Chicago and Great Southern Railway Company superior to the lien of the mortgage of November 1, 1881; and that it also erred in decreeing these claims to be liens on the railroad and property of the consolidated company superior to the lien of the mortgage of April 9, 1883, conveying the railroad and property formerly known as the Chicago and Block Coal railroad.

It is urged, in maintenance of the decree below, that the relations which Crawford sustained towards the several appellees when their claims respectively accrued, and his relations to the railway company, were such as to preclude him from acquiring the mortgage bonds in controversy to the prejudice of the appellees; that his construction contract was fraudulent and void as against the appellees, as creditors of the company; that, as between him and the appellees, he is estopped, by the provisions of his construction contract, from claiming the right to a prior lien upon, or an equal distribution of, the proceeds of sale of the property of the company; that the legal situation was that of a nominal corporation vested with the legal title to its property for the use of Crawford as sole beneficiary; that Dull and McCormick received the bonds subject to the same equities against them which could be urged while they were in Crawford's possession; that the equities of the appellees against the $1,000,000 of bonds, in the hands of Drexel, Morgan & Co., were precisely what they were while the bonds were in the hands of Crawford; that the appellees are entitled, in equity, to be paid out of the assets of the company the amounts of their respective claims in preference to Crawford; that all rights which Nickerson and Porter might have had to be subrogated to the position of Drexel, Morgan & Co. were lost by the syndicate agreement of December 26, 1884; that the legal effect of that agreement was a purchase by Porter directly from Crawford; that the amounts in controversy on these appeals are a part of the purchase price of the securities on such purchase of them by Porter, reserved by him to be paid either to Crawford or to the appellees; that the real controversy here is between Crawford and the First National Bank of Chicago on the one hand and the appellees on the other; that the appellant had no interest in that controversy; that, by the purchase of the securities under the syndicate agreement, Porter was charged with full notice of all the facts from which the equities of the appellees against Crawford and the mortgage bonds arise; that the First National Bank acquired no better rights against the appellees, by the assignment to it of Crawford's interest in the syndicate agreement, than Crawford himself had; that the equities of the appellees to be paid the amounts due to them out of the fund in court are superior to those of Porter, as the nominal party, and to those of Crawford as the real party; and that Porter, by reason of his ownership and possession of over $700,000 of unpaid capital stock of the company, had no right, as against the appellees, to foreclose the mortgage for the benefit of his bonds until the claims of the appellees should first be paid.

The considerations which seem to us to show that the Circuit Court erred in awarding priority to the claims of these creditors over the mortgage bonds, are few and controlling.

The mortgages and the bonds are valid and binding as against the company; the company owes a large debt for the construction of its road, which is represented by the bonds; there was no bad faith, irregularity, deceit, or fraud in the execution of the mortgages or in the issuing of the bonds thereunder; the bonds in the hands of Porter represent actual values received by the company; they represent the entire purchase money that was paid for the Chicago and Block Coal railroad, extending south from Attica to Yeddo; they represent all the money that was paid directly by Drexel, Morgan & Co., through their agent, for the construction of the railroad north of Attica, a considerable portion of which money was paid to these five appellees; they represent all the money that was paid by Crawford out of his own means for the construction of the new railroad north of Attica; in fact, they represent all the money that has ever been paid by the company for the Chicago and Block Coal railroad and for the construction of the sixty miles of new road from Attica to Fair Oaks, excepting only some $40,000 or $50,000 received from aid voted by townships.

To the objection, that, at the time the mortgage of November 1, 1881, was executed and the bonds were issued, Crawford owned the entire stock of the company and dominated the board of directors, and that the mortgage and bonds were issued under his dictation and coercion, even if such an objection could be legally tenable, it is a sufficient answer, that when the mortgage was made, and the $1,000,000 of bonds were issued and pledged to Dull and McCormick, Crawford was not a director or officer of the company. Foster was its president, and he and his associates constituted the entire board of directors, and they remained in full control until March 15, 1882. That this board was not dominated or controlled by Crawford is shown by the fact that when, on February 7, 1882, eleven days after Crawford had delivered in pledge to Dull & McCormick the $1,000,000 of bonds, Crawford asked the board to enter into a construction contract with him, and sent them a draft of the contract which he desired, the board unanimously rejected it. At the time the mortgage was executed, and at the time the bonds were issued and pledged to Dull and McCormick, Crawford held $50,250 par value of the stock, and Foster held $10,000 par value of it. The mere fact that Crawford owned a majority of the stock did not give him the legal control of the company; nor from such ownership can the legal inference be drawn that he dominated the board of directors. Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Co., 115 U.S. 587, 596.

The circumstances attending the issuing of the $1,000,000 of bonds show that they were issued by Foster and his board of directors in good faith, and largely for indebtedness of the company then existing. There is no foundation for the suggestion that the mortgage and the bonds were without consideration, nor does it lie in the mouths of these appellees to raise the objection as to the absence of a legal board of directors of the company; for, if the mortgage and the bonds are invalid for want of such legal board, and for want of the legal existence of the corporation, the contracts between these appellees and the company, upon which their claims are based, are invalid for the same reason, and the consolidation by which the company procured the Chicago and Black Coal Company's road would be void, and that road would be free from all debts incurred by the Chicago and Great Southern Railway Company. Moreover, the directors were directors de facto, who held themselves out to the world as such, under such circumstances that their official acts bind the corporation and all persons who claim under it.

The claims of the appellees are for the original construction of the railroad. This is not a case where the proceeds of the sale of the property of a railroad, as a completed structure, open for travel and transportation, are to be applied to restore earnings which, instead of having been applied to pay operating expenses and necessary repairs, have been diverted to pay interest on mortgage bonds and the improvement of the mortgaged property, the debts due for the operating expenses and repairs having remained unpaid when a receiver was appointed. The equitable principles upon which the decisions rest, applying to the payment, out of the proceeds of the sale of railroad property, of such debts for operating expenses and necessary repairs, are not applicable to claims such as the present, accrued for the original construction of a railroad while there was a subsisting mortgage upon it. These five appellees gave credit to the company for their work. It was construction work, and none of it was for operating expenses or repairs, and none of it went towards keeping a completed road in operation, either in the way of labor or of material. When these claims accrued, the road of the company had not been opened for use. The claims accrued after the mortgage had been executed and recorded, and after $1,000,000 of the bonds secured by it had been issued and pledged to innocent bona fide holders for value. We are not aware of any well-considered adjudged case which, in the absence of a statutory provision, holds that unsecured floating debts for construction are a lien on a railroad superior to the lien of a valid mortgage duly recorded, and of bonds secured thereby, and held by bona fide purchasers for value. The authorities are all the other way.

On the facts of this case, the mortgage and the bonds are not affected by the existence of Crawford's construction contract, which was made on the 18th of March, 1882, after the issuing of the bonds and the pledging of them to Dull and McCormick. The amount of those bonds constitute the present value of the entire railroad property. By the construction contract, Crawford, in consideration of the bonds and stock which he was to receive under it, bound himself not only to complete, but to equip the road. The contract was not an unfair one. It was performed in part. Only $200,000 of the bonds were issued after the construction contract was made. At the date of that contract, Crawford was a large creditor of the company for money advanced by him and expended in construction. He had been advancing from his own means large amounts of money, and it was to reimburse to him the $300,000 or $400,000 of his own means already expended in the work, and to enable him to complete the payment for the Chicago and Block Coal railroad, and to proceed with the work of construction, that the $1,000,000 of bonds were issued to him. All the money received by the company for the bonds went into the property. The property produced by that money has never been worth what was expended in its production. From the date of the construction contract, the company was never able to issue or deliver a single bond under it, except by the consent of Dull and McCormick, or of Drexel, Morgan & Co., the parties who held the bonds and stock in pledge. The advances of money made by Crawford after the date of the construction contract were made without any security to him. Every bond issued after the date of the contract with Drexel, Morgan & Co. was required by that contract to be delivered directly to them, as additional security to them. Crawford realized no profits out of the mortgaged property, and never received anything for his services, or any reimbursement of the large sums of money he expended in this work. On these facts, it is impossible to see that the existence of the construction contract can have any bearing upon the case. Under any circumstances, no contract under which about sixty miles of railroad had been constructed would be held invalid for the reasons assigned in this case, without the repayment to the contractor of the amount actually expended by him in good faith under the contract. Thomas v. Brownville Railroad Co., 109 U.S. 522, 526.

Moreover, it is a well settled principle, that subsequent creditors cannot be heard to impeach an executed contract, where their dealings with the company, of which they claim the benefit, occurred after the contract became an executed contract. Graham v. Railroad Co., 102 U.S. 148. The claims of all the appellees except the Cleveland Rolling Mill Company accrued after the construction contract was made. As to that company, it, after the construction contract was made, and while Crawford was carrying on the work of construction under it, knowingly received on account of its claims money which came directly from Drexel, Morgan & Co., as a result of the pledge of the bonds to that firm.

Dull and McCormick, Drexel, Morgan & Co., and Porter were respectively, in succession, purchasers in good faith of these bonds, as negotiable commercial securities, without notice of any irregularity or infirmity in them; and are entitled to the benefit of the principles applicable under such circumstances. Porter paid to Drexel, Morgan & Co. more than $392,000 in money for the bonds, and, under all circumstances, is entitled to protect his title by that of Drexel, Morgan & Co., and, through them, by the title of Dull and McCormick.

It is contended for the appellees that Porter did not purchase the bonds from Drexel, Morgan & Co., but bought them directly from Crawford. The evidence shows that Crawford, after January 27, 1882, the date at which he pledged the $1,000,000 of bonds to Dull and McCormick, never had one of those bonds in his possession or under his control. Dull and McCormick, not Crawford, delivered the bonds to Drexel, Morgan & Co., upon the payment to them by Drexel, Morgan & Co. of the debt due to them on account of the purchase of the Chicago and Block Coal railroad. The $200,000 of bonds issued after the negotiation of the loan from Drexel, Morgan & Co. were at once delivered to them, under their contract of pledge. This pledge vested in them the legal title to the bonds, and Porter purchased that legal title from them. In opposition to this view, it is urged that the terms of the written agreement between Crawford and Porter of December 26, 1884, show that the purchase by Porter was from Crawford; but the true purport and effect of that instrument is, as before stated, a sale by Crawford to Porter and his associates of Crawford's right to redeem the bonds from Porter and his associates by paying the amount of money which Porter had paid to Drexel, Morgan & Co. By the contract of June 25, 1884, between Porter and Nickerson and Drexel, Morgan & Co., the former bound themselves to pay to the latter Crawford's debt to them, upon receiving from them the stock and bonds which they held as collateral to the debt. Nickerson assigned to Porter his interest in this contract, and Porter paid to Drexel, Morgan & Co. the amount of Crawford's debt to them, and took from them the bonds pledged to them by Crawford as collateral. By this transaction Porter became the owner of the legal title to the bonds, and was subrogated to all the rights of Drexel, Morgan & Co. in them. The contract of December 26, 1884, between Crawford and Porter, merely extinguished Crawford's right to redeem the pledged bonds. Under these circumstances, whatever it was that Porter purchased from Crawford, the former would, in equity, be subrogated to all the rights of Drexel, Morgan & Co., and, through them, to all the rights of Dull and McCormick.

Certain clauses in the agreement between Crawford and Porter of December 26, 1884, are cited as creating an equity or lien in favor of the appellees. By one clause in the agreement the syndicate represented by Porter agrees: "Second. To pay and clear off any and all claims against said Chicago and Great Southern Railway Company which may be decided by the court to be liens upon the said line of railway paramount to the lien of the bonds and coupons secured by the trust deed to said John C. New, dated November 1, 1881, or which the court may decide shall be equitably payable out of the proceeds of the sale of the said line of railway prior to any payment of the said bonds or coupons, including therein any and all claims for right of way and depot grounds, engine-house and station buildings, water-tanks and shops, between Fair Oaks and Yeddo, both inclusive, bridges and other structures heretofore built and put in place on said railway, and essential to the operation thereof, but the title to which is not in said railway company, and which the court may decide must be paid for in preference to said bonds, and also any and all indebtedness incurred by the receiver in possession of said property prior to January 15, 1885, and not paid out of moneys earned by the operation of said road prior to January 15, 1885." By the same instrument, Crawford agrees as follows: "Section 5. The party of the first part hereby, in consideration of the premises, guarantees and agrees that the claims, liens, and other possible indebtedness mentioned in subdivision two, which shall be held to be prior in right to payment over said twelve hundred bonds and coupons, shall not in any event exceed the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)."

These clauses do not create the lien or equity supposed. They leave the question as to the existence of any such "claims, liens, and other possible indebtedness," mentioned in the agreement, to be adjudicated by the court, and also leave to be decided by the court the question of the priority of such claims over the bonds, and merely provide for the rights of the parties as between themselves in case the court establishes such priority. As before said, the purpose of Crawford, in making the agreement of December 26, 1884, was to protect the second pledge of the bonds and stock to the First National Bank of Chicago, he having put into the construction of the railroad about $100,000 of the money which he had borrowed from the bank; and he immediately assigned to the bank all his interest in the contract with Porter. The contract between Porter and Crawford, and that between Crawford and the bank, having been entered into in contemplation of the purchase of the bonds from Drexel, Morgan & Co. by Porter, the legal relation of the appellees to the company and to its property, as unsecured holders of construction claims, was not affected by these transactions, so as to give them any greater rights against the mortgaged property than they had previously had. In any event, as before said, the bonds would be sustained in the hands of Porter, as a first lien, to the amount actually advanced upon the faith of the pledge of them and expended in constructing the railroad, with interest. It is found by the final decree that there is now in court $325,194.27 derived from the sale of the mortgaged property. All the money advanced by Drexel, Morgan & Co. went directly into this property. The amount paid by Porter to Drexel, Morgan & Co., on January 12, 1885, was $392,363.24, exceeding by $67,168.97 the entire net proceeds in court, saying nothing about interest for over two years on the amount paid by Porter. This view is entirely conclusive of this case, and shows that there is no fund in court arising from the sale of the property that can upon any principle be held applicable to the payment of the construction claims of these appellees; and this is irrespective of the fact that, in addition, Crawford put into this property, in good faith, out of his own individual means, the further sum of $600,000.

It is contended, however, that Crawford was all the time substantially the owner of the entire railroad property, and that the claims of the appellees were debts due to them from Crawford for work and material in constructing his railroad, and that these claimants have a lien, in this way, superior to the lien of the mortgage bonds. In answer to this view, in addition to the suggestions already made, and treating Crawford as the owner of the railroad, it may be said, that the rights of Porter would be no different from his rights as dealing with the company as owner of the property. The delivery by Crawford of the bonds secured by a mortgage made by himself on the railroad, to a third person, for a valuable consideration, made the mortgage a valid security, and made the bonds in the hands of Dull and McCormick a valid lien on the railroad. An owner of a railroad, though he may be in debt to those who aid in constructing it by furnishing materials, may still execute a mortgage on it which will be good against unsecured creditors. No more than this was done, upon the theory we are now considering. The creditors would have no lien superior to the lien of the bonds. The mortgage was recorded, and the $1,000,000 of bonds were issued before the claims accrued. It results from these views, that the entire purchase money now in court, arising from the foreclosure sale, after paying the costs and the receiver's indebtedness, should be paid out upon the bonds and coupons secured by the mortgage, in preference to the payment of the claims of the appellees, such net amount being less than the amount of money advanced by Drexel, Morgan & Co. on the pledge of the bonds and reimbursed to them by Porter.

It has been contended for the appellees, that the appeals by Porter now under consideration are appeals only from the decree of October 9, 1886; that he did not perfect any appeal from the decree of February 16, 1886; that the latter decree was a final decree; that the errors which Porter now insists on were errors committed in entering the decree of February 16, 1886; and that none of the errors now assigned can be considered by this court, because of the want of any appeal from the decree of February 16, 1886, and because the adjudications now complained of were made by that decree, and not by the decree of October 9, 1886.

It is a sufficient answer to these contentions to say, that the decree of February 16, 1886, though a final decree of foreclosure and sale as respected the interest of the mortgagor, and in some other respects, was not a final decree in respect of the matters involved in these appeals. The sixth clause of that decree merely provided that all unpaid, valid claims against the company for right of way, lands, labor, rolling-stock, and material used in the construction and betterment of the railway, were prior, superior, and paramount to the lien of the mortgages and the bonds; but determined nothing as to who were the holders of such claims, or as to what were their amounts. It designated no persons who could be appellees in any appeal by Porter in respect of such claims, and it provided for a reference to ascertain who were the several claimants under the sixth paragraph of the decree, and what were the amounts due to them severally. The first and only decree from which Porter could appeal, in respect of the claims of these appellees, was the decree of October 9, 1886. The sale made under the decree of February 16, 1886, was not made subject to any claim of any of these appellees. An amendment of that decree, made on the 2d of March, 1886, prior to the sale, provided "that the sale of the property hereinbefore ordered shall pass to the purchaser a title thereto, free and discharged of all liens and claims, including the two classes of claims mentioned in the sixth paragraph of said decree." The question of the existence and priority of those claims is, therefore, one open for consideration on these appeals.

The various questions above stated as being raised by the appellees, which are not particularly adverted to, have been fully considered, and it is not regarded as necessary to further remark upon them, or upon the special points made in regard to the particular claims of the appellees, as the views on which we have rested the case seem to us to be controlling on those questions and points.

The decree of the Circuit Court, made October 9th, 1886, is reversed, in so far as it decrees that the claims of the five appellees are prior, superior, and paramount to the lien of the mortgages or deeds of trust mentioned in the decree of February 16th, 1886, and of the bonds secured thereby; and in so far as it provides for the payment to the appellees, out of the fund in the registry of the court, of the several sums of money specified in the said decree of the 9th of October, 1886; and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court, with a direction to take such further proceedings as shall not be inconsistent with this opinion.