SKIDMORE & OTHERS
v.
PITTSBURG, CINCINNATI & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court judgment holding that the Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company had superior rights to railroad property based on its lease from the Columbus, Chicago & Indiana Central Company, whose equitable title converted to legal title when a deed was executed in 1872, thereby taking priority over claims by William B. Skidmore and others that accrued later. The Court established that the railway company's possessory rights under the lease inured to its benefit upon the transfer of legal title, regardless of the validity of the Skidmores' claims against the original owner.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the.foregoing language and continued : •
’ The judgment "below was clearly right. The Columbus, Chicago &, Indiana Central Company was, in equity, the owner of the property when the lease was made and when the Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Company went into possession under it. The deed executed in February, 1872, pursuant to the contract of purchase, converted the equitable title of the Columbus, Chicago & Indiana Central Company into a legal title, which at once, by operation of law, inured to the benefit of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Company under .its lease. All the rights of William B. Skidmore, as against1 the property, accrued long after those of tho Pitts-burg, Cincinnati &. St. Louis Company and are subject to tho title of that company. Such being the case, it is entirely unnecessary to inquire whether the Skidmores acquired a valid title to the property as against the Columbus, Chicago & Indiana Central Company. The Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Company is entitled to the possession, whether that title be good or bad.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ala. & Others v. Montague & Another, 117 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1886)
Authorities Cited
- Pa. Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1880)
- Brine v. Ins. Co., 96 U.S. 627 (U.S. 1877)
- Hammock v. Loan & Tr. Co., 105 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1881)
- Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 105 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1881)
- R.R. Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90 (U.S. 1866)
- Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35 (U.S. 1864)
- Boyce v. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546 (U.S. 1873)
- Ross v. John Doe on the demise of Adam Barland, 1 Pet. 655 (U.S. 1828)
- Nichols v. Levy, 5 Wall. 433 (U.S. 1866)