Real Estate Trust Co. v. Penna. Sugar Refining Co.

Citations

• 239 Pa. 456
• 86 A. 1074
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 588

Syllabus

<p>Practice Supreme Court — Interest in controversy — Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67 — Affidavit—Motion to quash.</p> <p>1. An appeal can properly be taken only by one having an interest in tbe result. Where it appears that the appellant had assigned away its interest in the controversy prior to the appeal, a motion to quash might properly be sustained.</p> <p>2. The affidavit required by the Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, that the appeal is not taken for delay, must be made by appellant or by some authorized officer or agent on its behalf; where the affidavit does not show that it has been made by such person it is not a compliance with the statute.</p> <p>Corporate mortgage — Foreclosure—Purchase by trustee — Reorganization — Distribution of stoch in new corporation — Detached, coupons — Priority—Auditor.</p> <p>3. Where acting under the terms of a corporate mortgage a trustee thereunder bought in the property at a foreclosure sale, and at a meeting of the bondholders a plan of reorganization was agreed to, involving the formation of a new corporation and the distribution of stock therein to the holders of bonds and coupons, an auditor appointed to make distribution of such stock has no other duty than to apportion said stock in accordance with the reorganization plan adopted by a majority of the bondholders. Whether or not the reorganization plan was effective to compel the acceptance of stock in' exchange for bonds or coupons was not before him.</p> <p>4. In such case the auditor was correct in making no distinction between holders of coupons detached from bonds and of those still attached thereto.</p> <p>5. In making such distribution of stock under the express terms of the reorganization agreement, the auditor committed no error in distributing it, first, among the holders of coupons and, second, among the holders of bonds, at its par value, especially where no evidence was produced to show that the stock was not worth its face value.</p> <p>6. Where the reorga