Cushing v. Chapman

Citations

• 115 F. 237
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4930

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroad Bonds — Equitable Assignment.</p> <p>Plaintiff’s assignor, in consideration of the assignment of a Judgment against a railroad company, received a contract by which another railroad company agreed to transfer and deliver to such assignor its first mortgage bonds, to be thereafter issued, to the face value of such judgment, the bonds to be delivered as soon as practicable, and as early as any issue of bonds were delivered to any one else in the work of constructing the railway. The judgment was assigned, and thereafter all of the bonds authorized by the issue were issued, and transferred to other parties, under separate contracts, without the delivery of any bonds to plaintiff’s assignor, who assigned a part of his claim therefor to plaintiff. Held, that such contract was a mere promise to pay a debt out of a particular fund or mass of property to be thereafter created, and did not constitute an equitable assignment thereof, enforceable against the bonds issued.1</p> <p>8. Same — Charge—Equitable Lien.</p> <p>Such contract did not create a charge or equitable lien either on the entire issue of bonds so issued in the hands of subsequent holders, nor on any particular bonds issued separately to other parties under separate contracts.</p> <p>8. Same — Implied Contract.</p> <p>Where a railroad company contracted, in consideration of the assignment of a- judgment, to deliver to the judgment creditor certain bonds of such railroad to be thereafter issued, but the contract did not specify any particular bonds to be delivered, nor otherwise give such judgment creditor any prior right to his aliquot part of the total issue, and the company failed to perform its contract, such judgment creditor had no enforceable equitable interest in the bonds issued to other parties, but was only entitled to recover the value of the bonds in money under an implied contract</p>