Fidelity Columbia Trust Co. v. Schmidt, (1932)
Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)
Number:
Visitors: 10
Judges: OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDGE WILLIS
Attorneys: WILLIAM MARSHALL BULLITT, ROBERT LEE BLACKWELL, T. KENNEDY HELM, FURLONG WOODBURY, GARNETT VAN WINKLE, BEN F. WASHER, and DAVIS W. EDWARDS for appellants.
J.D. O'LEARY, CHARLES T. RAY, and GROVER G. SALES for appellees.
Filed: Jun. 21, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Affirming. The questions raised by this record are difficult, some of them are new, and all of them are interesting and important. They grew out of the insolvency of the Louisville Title Company. The controversy revolves around the pivotal question whether the borrower or the bondholders must suffer the loss arising from the dissipation of payments made by the borrower to the *Page 434 title company, trustee, as required by the contract. The bondholders claim to be bone fide purchasers for value
Summary: Affirming. The questions raised by this record are difficult, some of them are new, and all of them are interesting and important. They grew out of the insolvency of the Louisville Title Company. The controversy revolves around the pivotal question whether the borrower or the bondholders must suffer the loss arising from the dissipation of payments made by the borrower to the *Page 434 title company, trustee, as required by the contract. The bondholders claim to be bone fide purchasers for value ..
More
I concur thoroughly in the opinion, except my view is the monthly payments created a sinking fund or security, and the unexercised authority conferred on the trustee on which the opinion lays stress did not abrogate the status of such funds nor constitute a payment on the bonds in any sense, and the loss therefor should be borne by the borrower.
Source: CourtListener
