Opinion of the Court.

fendant, or the cases were otherwise inapplicable to the question in hand.

In the present case there was a conspiracy, tortious acts in furtherance of it, and consequent damage to the plaintiff. The property seized by the collector was in the custody of the law. The tax-payers, for whose unpaid taxes it had been seized, had no longer any right to its possession or use, and could not sell or otherwise dispose of it. It was devoted by the law to be sold to raise a fund to pay the plaintiff's judgment. The plaintiff had, therefore, an interest, which the law gave him, in the property and its sale, and suffered a direct damage from the alleged acts of the defendants by which a sale was prevented.

The plaintiff, according to the averments of his petition, had recovered his judgment against the county; and he had obtained his mandamus to the County Court directing it to levy and cause to be collected a special tax to pay the judgment. The collector of the county, in obedience to the orders of the County Court, which were themselves in obedience to the mandamus of the Circuit Court, was proceeding to collect the tax, and had levied on property to that end, and was about to sell it when the threats and hostile demonstrations of the defendants defeated the sale, and the petition averred the defendants continued to overawe and intimidate the tax-payers of the county, so that they did-not pay the tax, and the collector had not been able, by reason thereof, to collect the tax.

The plaintiff cannot sue the collector, for he has done his duty, and no suit lies against him. Unless the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendants, he is without remedy. To hot that the facts of this case do not give a cause of action against them would be to decide that a citizen might be subjected to a wilful and malicious injury at the hands of private persons without redress; that an organized band of conspirators could, without subjecting themselves to any liability, fraudulently and maliciously obstruct and defeat the process of the courts, issued for the satisfaction of the judgment of a private suitor, and thus render the judgment nugatory and worthless. Such a conclusion would be contrary to the principles of the common law and of right and justice.

Syllabus.

It is no answer to the case made by the petition to say, as the defendants, by their counsel do, that the judgment of the plaintiff is still in force and bearing interest, and the liability of the county still remains undisturbed. What is a judgment worth that cannot be enforced? The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is that the defendants have obstructed, and continue to obstruct, the collection of his judgment, and he avers that he has been damaged thereby to the amount of his judgment and interest; in other words, that by reason of the unlawful and malicious conduct of the defendants, his judg ment has been rendered worthless. To reply to this that the judgment still remains in force on the records of the court is an inadequate answer to the plaintiff's cause of action.

It follows from the views we have expressed that the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the petition. Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER and MR. JUSTICE FIELD dissented.

CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING COMPANY OF GEORGIA v. PETTUS & Others.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA.

1 Argued April 14, 15, 1884.-Decided January 5, 1825.

Certain unsecured creditors of a railroad company in Alabama instituted proceedings in equity, in a court of that State, on behalf of themselves and of all other creditors of the same class who should come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit, to establish a lien upon the property of that company in the hands of other railroad corporations which had purchased and had possession of it. The suit was successful, and the court allowed all unsecured creditors to prove their claims before a register. Pending the reference before the register the defendant corporations bought up the claims of complainants, and other unsecured creditors. Thereupon the solicitors of complainants filed their petition in the cause to be allowed reasonable compensation in respect of the demands of unsecured creditors (other than their

Statement of Facts.

immediate clients), who filed their claims under the decree, and to have a lien declared therefor on the property reclaimed for the benefit of such creditors. The suit between the solicitors and such defendant corporations was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States: Held—

(1) Within the principle announced in Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527, the claim was a proper one to be allowed.

(2) It was, also, proper to give the solicitors a lien upon the property brought under the control of the court by the suit and the decree therein, such lien being authorized by the law of Alabama.

(3) That under the eircumstances of this case the amount allowed by the court below was excessive.

This was an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama in favor of the appellees-Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons-adjudging them entitled to the sum of $35,161.21, and interest thereon at eight per cent. per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the road-bed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants-corporations of the State of Georgia-in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point, with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale, unless, within a given time, the said amount was paid.

This suit was the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property, in which the appellants were interested. A statement of its history is necessary to a clear understanding of the questions now presented for determination.

On the 1st of September, 1870, the Western Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, purchased and took possession of the railroad (main line and branch) and all other property of the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company,--one of the terms and conditions of such purchase being, as was claimed, that the former company assumed the payment of all outstanding debts and obligations of the latter, and agreed to issue its capital stock, dollar for dollar, in exchange for stock of the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company out

Statement of Facts.

standing. It was a part of that arrangement that the last named company should, as it subsequently did, surrender its charter to the State.

When this purchase was made there were, upon the franchises and property of the latter company, two mortgages to secure bonds proposed to be issued; one, June 6, 1866, for $750,000, bonds for the whole of which were issued; the other, May 1, 1868, for $400,000, bonds for $45,000 of which were issued. It had also outstanding bonds issued in 1866 and 1867, not secured by mortgage or otherwise. The Western Railroad Company had, at the time of its purchase, a mortgage, of date September 15, 1868, upon its own property and franchises, to secure $600,000 of bonds then, or at some subsequent period, guaranteed by the present appellants.

On the 15th of September, 1870, that company executed to Morris and Lowery, trustees, a mortgage upon its property and franchises, (including the property transferred to it by the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company,) to secure the payment of $1,200,000 of bonds, thereafter to be issuedand of which a large amount was issued-and their payment was also guaranteed by the appellants.

Subsequently, on March 31, 1874, those trustees commenced a suit in the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, against the Western Railroad Company, the present appellants; the surviving trustees in the mortgages executed by the Montgomery and West Point, Railroad Company; and others. Its object was to procure a sale of the property of the former company, including that purchased from the latter company. A final decree was passed December 18, 1874, ordering a sale, subject, however, to a lien, in respect of the property formerly owned by the last named company, in favor of the holders of its mortgage bonds, according to their respective priorities; and, in respect of the property of the Western Railroad Company, to a lien in favor of the holders of bonds secured by its mortgage of September 15, 1868. The sale was had-the present appellants becoming the purchasers.

On the 8th of May, 1875, Branch, Sons & Co., H. P. Hoadley, and C. S. Plank-holding bonds of the (old) Montgomery

Statement of Facts,

and West Point Railroad Company, not secured by mortgage -through Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, their solicitors, exhibited a bill in equity in the same court, against the present appellants, the Western Railroad Company, the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, and others. They sued for themselves as well as for all other creditors of the last named company who should come in and make themselves complainants and contribute to the expenses of the suit. Such proceedings were had—the Georgia corporations appearing and making defence that, on the 1st day of May, 1877, a final decree was entered, by which it was, among other things, adjudged that "the unsecured creditors of the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company, to which class complainants belong, have a lien" upon the property transferred by it to the Western Railroad Company; that such lien was subordinate to those for the bonds issued under the several mortgages executed by the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company that were outstanding and unpaid, but superior to that of the mortgage executed by the Western Railroad Company after its said purchase, so far as the property of the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company was covered by that mortgage; and that the property of all kinds, belonging to the latter company, be sold to satisfy its debts according to priority.

The cause was referred to a register to ascertain and report the amounts due to the complainants, and to such other unsecured creditors of the Montgomery and West Point Railroad Company as should prove their claims pursuant to the decree: also, the amounts due to holders of bonds issued under its several mortgages. Upon appeal by the two Georgia corporations to the Supreme Court of Alabama, that decree was affirmed. The register thereafter proceeded with its execution. Numerous parties, including the complainants, appeared before him and had their claims registered, the creditors in each instance retaining in their own custody the evidence of their respective demands. The aggregate amounts of such claims was very large.

On the 15th of April, 1879, the register not having made his