Wright v. Kentucky & Great Eastern Ry. Co.
Annotate this Case
117 U.S. 72 (1886)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Wright v. Kentucky & Great Eastern Ry. Co., 117 U.S. 72 (1886)
Wright v. Kentucky and Great Eastern Railway Company
Argued January 15, 18-19, 1886
Decided March 1, 1886
117 U.S. 72
The Kentucky and Great Eastern Railway Construction Company, which had a contract with the Kentucky and Great Eastern Railway Company made May 22, 1873, to construct for it a railway in Kentucky from Newport to Catlettsburg, and did work between Maysville and Catlettsburg, completing about seven miles of road and purchasing and putting down the iron rails and other materials, acquired no lien on the road or on any part of its line, completed or not completed.
The Kentucky and Great Eastern Railway Company having previously, under a contract made by it January 15, 1873, with the owners of the Maysville and Big Sandy Railroad for a conditional sale of that railroad, taken possession of it, and the Construction Company having notice of that contract when the construction contract was made, and the vendors having declared that contract to be void according to its terms and resumed possession of the railroad with the consent of the vendee; the Construction Company acquired no rights in regard to so much of the line, completed or not completed, between Maysville and Catlettsburg as was part of the line of the Maysville and Big Sandy Railroad, which were not subject to the rights of the vendors of that road. A mortgage having been made by the Kentucky and Great Eastern Railway Company on February 15, 1872, to a trustee, to secure bonds, on the line from Newport to Catlettsburg, the trustee acquired under it no greater rights at any time than the Railway Company had, and, no bonds having been issued before the conditional sale of the Maysville and Big Sandy Railroad was made, on January 15, 1873, the trustee had, as against the vendors of that road, only such rights as the mortgagor had.
The facts which make the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.