This was a motion to dismiss, with which was united a
Page 115 U. S. 599
motion to affirm. The facts are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The grounds of the motion to dismiss are:
1. That the appeal is improperly taken in the name of Hassall,
trustee, as it is apparent he has no interest in the decree,
and
2. That the amounts involved are not sufficient to give this
Court jurisdiction. The controversy is between Hassall, the trustee
in a railroad mortgage, who intervened in a suit brought by one of
the bondholders for a foreclosure, and certain creditors of the
railroad company claiming superior liens on the mortgaged property.
The trustee came into the suit by agreement, and with leave of the
court, "as a party complainant." Necessarily, as trustee, he
represents all the bondholders, there being no conflicting interest
among them. The demand of each creditor is separate and distinct
from all the others. Each claim depends on its own facts, and a
recovery by one does not necessarily involve a recovery by any
other. The decree is in favor of each creditor separately. The
total amount of all the recoveries is $19,043.45, or thereabouts,
but, save the appellee A. W. Wilcox, no one creditor gets more than
$5,000. The mortgaged property has been sold, and the questions
arise upon the distribution of the proceeds in court. The claimants
are each severally demanding payment of their respective claims,
and the trustee is resisting them all. If the claimants are paid,
the trustee gets less for the bondholders. If they are defeated or
either of them is, the amount going to the bondholders will be
correspondingly increased.
It is clear that, as to all the creditors whose several decrees
do not exceed $5,000, this case cannot be distinguished from
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Waterman, 106 U.
S. 265,
Page 115 U. S. 600
and that so far as those creditors are concerned, the motion to
dismiss must be granted. With Wilcox it is different. He has
recovered more than $5,000. In Waterman's case, the dispute was
between the several creditors and the purchasers who bought at the
foreclosure sale subject to their liens. It is true the purchasers
were a part of the bondholders, but in the controversy then before
us they appeared as purchasers, and not as bondholders. The amount
for distribution to the bondholders from the proceeds of the sale
would be the same whether the creditors succeeded on the appeal or
not. In this case, however, the question is between the creditors
and the bondholders, as bondholders. If the creditors succeed, the
amount realized from the sale will be correspondingly reduced for
the purposes of distribution to the bondholders. Hassall stands in
the place of the bondholders on the record. Hence it is his duty to
do for the bondholders what they would do for themselves if they
were parties instead of himself. His appeal is therefore their
appeal, and is to be treated as such.
It follows that as to all the parties except Wilcox, the motion
to dismiss the appeal must be granted, but that as to him it must
be denied.
The questions arising on the appeal from the decree in favor of
Wilcox are not such as ought to be disposed of on a motion to
affirm. The motion to that effect is denied.
Dismissed as to all the appellees except Wilcox.