Godfrey v. Powell

6 Citing cases

  1. Godfrey v. Powell

    159 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1947)   Cited 8 times

    Proceeding in the matter of the receivership of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, wherein Legh R. Powell, Jr., and Henry W. Anderson were appointed receivers and a suit by the trustees under a mortgage given by the All Florida Lines to foreclose the mortgage, wherein Philip Godfrey and others intervened. Five decrees adverse to the interveners were affirmed, 150 F.2d 486, and one decree adverse to the interveners was affirmed, 155 F.2d 51. From a decree denying interveners' claims for expenses and attorneys' fees, they appeal. Affirmed.

  2. United States v. Brady

    385 F. Supp. 1347 (S.D. Fla. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    In Brady, the district court reasoned that "[i]f subsequent transfers were to be immunized from liability, there would be no incentive to maintain the facility on a public or non-profit basis after title had left the hands of the original grantee."

    The only act which remains to be done is the transfer of legal title. Godfrey v. Powell, 155 F.2d 51 (5th Cir. 1946). See, 47 Am.Jur.2d, Judicial Sales §§ 219-221 (1969).

  3. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

    68 F. Supp. 639 (E.D. Va. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    A separate appeal was taken in the Fifth Circuit which resulted in affirmance, Badenhausen v. Glazebrook, 148 F.2d 450, certiorari denied, 326 U.S. 733, 66 S.Ct. 42. For incidental and other litigation related to the receivership, and the reorganization plan, see Badenhausen v. Baetjer, 4 Cir., 146 F.2d 762, certiorari denied, 324 U.S. 882, 65 S.Ct. 1029, 89 L.Ed. 1432; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 60 F.Supp. 607; Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 486, certiorari denied 326 U.S. 779, 66 S.Ct. 272; Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 51; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., D.C., 62 F.Supp. 207, affirmed Dure v. Glazebrook, 152 F.2d 756, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct. 1346, Case 3; Blackford v. Powell, 4 Cir., 151 F.2d 392, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct. 523, Case 1.         The last of the critical litigations affecting the plan having been successfully terminated in December 1945, application was made to the Interstate Commerce Commission to finally approve the issuance of securities by the new reorganized corporation.

  4. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.

    68 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. Va. 1946)   Cited 2 times

    confirmed the master's plan of reorganization but with substantial modifications, especially with regard to distribution of the securities among those entitled to participate in the plan. A few of the parties prosecuted appeals in both the Fourth and Fifth Circuits where the orders of the District Courts were respectively affirmed and certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court in both cases (Guaranty Trust Co. et al. v. Seaboard Air Line R. et al., D.C., 53 F. Supp. 672; 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 40; Badenhausen v. Guaranty Trust Co., 323 U.S. 797, 65 S.Ct. 440, 89 L.Ed. 636; Badenhausen v. Glazebrook, 5 Cir., 148 F.2d 450, 326 U.S. 733, 66 S.Ct. 42. See also Badenhausen v. Baetjer, 4 Cir., 146 F.2d 762, certiorari denied 324 U.S. 882, 65 S.Ct. 1029, 89 L.Ed. 1432; Blackford Simpson v. Powell, 4 Cir., 151 F.2d 392, certiorari denied 66 S.Ct. 523, (Case 1); Guaranty Trust Co. v. Seaboard D.C., 60 F. Supp. 607; Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir., 150 F.2d 486, 326 U.S. 779, 66 S.Ct. 272; Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 51; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Seaboard, D.C., 62 F. Supp. 207; Dure v. Glazebrook, 4 Cir., 152 F.2d 756, 66 S.Ct. 1346 (Case 3). It has frequently been stated, without being questioned, that the financial and legal structure of the Seaboard has presented the most complex situation with which the courts have had to deal in any railroad reorganization.

  5. Saipan Achugao Resort Members' Ass'n v. Wan Jin Yoon

    8 N. Mar. I. 676 (N. Mar. I. 2011)   Cited 4 times
    In Saipan Achugao Resort Members' Ass'n, we stated that judicial confirmation "allows the trial court to ensure that 'the sale has been made in due compliance with the provisions of the decree ordering that sale....'" 2011 MP 12 ¶ 33, 8 N. Mar. I. 676 (quoting Travelers Indem. Co., 388 N.W.2d at 108).

    Among jurisdictions that allow purchasers to take possession of the foreclosed property during the redemption period, many permit the purchaser to possess the foreclosed property from confirmation onward. See, e.g., In re Marathon Foundry & Mach. Co., 239 F.2d 122, 128 (7th Cir. 1956) (noting that a party's suggestion to pay an additional amount for property "may have been a peace offer . . . to end the litigation and to acquire possession of property to which it had been entitled since the court's confirmation of the judicial sale."); Godfrey v. Powell, 155 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir. 1946) ("On confirmation of the sale by the court the accepted bidder becomes the purchaser in the full sense of the term and the substantial owner of the property sold with the right of possession . . . ." (quoting 31 Am. Jur. Judicial Sales § 146)); Sarasota-Fruitville Drainage Dist. v. All Lands Within Said Dist., 157 Fla. 207, 25 So.2d 498, 500 (Fla. 1946) ("Where land is sold at a judicial sale and the buyer allows the former owner to remain in possession after confirmation, the presumption is that the possession of the original owner is as quasi tenant or tenant at sufferance of the buyer . . . .").Several jurisdictions provide, either by statute or in accordance with common law, that the purchaser does not acquire the right to possession until the expiration of the redemption period and the delivery of the deed.

  6. Marks Brothers Paving Co. v. Ouellet

    124 So. 2d 514 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 2 times

    The appellant, as purchaser at its foreclosure sale and as recipient of a certificate of title based thereon, became an "owner" entitled to possession, although it would appear that upon a full disclosure of the interests of all the parties the appellee, as the original holder of the superior lien of those foreclosed, should, following the two foreclosures, be entitled to prevail as between the two foreclosure sale purchasers (as the chancellor ultimately found in this suit). Godfrey v. Powell, 5 Cir., 1946, 155 F.2d 51, 53; 59 C.J.S. Mortgages §§ 589, 768; 4 American Law of Property, § 16.195, pp. 469-470 (Casner Ed. 1952). But prior to such presentation of the matter to the court, the appellant, based on its purchase of the property at the second foreclosure sale, became entitled to possession and was not accountable for rents to the former owner or those claiming under such former owner.