Standley v. Roberts, 308

• Decision Date: 29 January 1894
• Docket Number: 345.,308
• Citation: 59 F. 836
• Parties: STANDLEY et al. v. ROBERTS, Sheriff, et al. ATOKA COAL & MIN. CO. v. HODGES et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

59 F. 836

STANDLEY et al. v. ROBERTS, Sheriff, et al.

ATOKA COAL & MIN. CO. v. HODGES et al.

Nos. 308, 345.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 29, 1894

The laws of the Choctaw Nation, in the Indian Territory, provide that: 'Any citizen of this nation who may find any mine or mines or mineral waters shall have the exclusive right and privilege to work the same as long as he may choose within one mile in any direction from his works or improvement provided, however, that he does not interfere with the rights of the former settler.' In 1887 James D. Davis, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation, claimed that he had discovered a mine in 1872, in coal claim No. 6, in Atoka county, in the Choctaw Nation; but he had in fact made no such discovery. There is evidence in the record tending to show that Oliver Hebert, a citizen of that nation, discovered a mine in that claim about 1881, and that H. W. Adams, another citizen, discovered such a mine in May or June, 1887. Hebert died about 1885. About June 1, 1887, Davis agreed with H. W. Adams, John M. Hodges H. Y. McBride, and McKee James, who owned mining claims 7, 8 9, and 10, in that county, that the five parties should thereafter each own one-fifth of each of claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. After this agreement was made, and after Adams had discovered the mine on No. 6, and had taken possession of it for his partners and himself, Davis agreed to sell the undivided three-fourths of coal claim No. 6 to Coleman E. Nelson, Thomas J. Phillips, and James S. Standley. October 1, 1887, Davis, Nelson, Standley, and Phillips leased to the Atoka Coal & Mining Company, the defendant below, for the term of 6 years, with the privilege of a term of 20 years more, the exclusive right of mining coal on coal claim No. 6; and the lessee promised to pay to Davis $25 a month until it commenced to mine, and thereafter to pay to the lessors one-quarter of a cent per bushel on all coal mined from the leased premises. After Davis had received $50 under this lease, the defendant notified him that these lessors had no coal to lease to it, and demanded the repayment of this money, and Davis paid it back. January 25, 1888, Adams, Davis, James, Hodges, and McBride leased the exclusive right to mine coal on claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the defendant for a term of 20 years, and the lessee agreed to pay them one-quarter of a cent per bushel on all coal mined on these claims, and to pay the representatives of the Choctaw Nation one-half a cent per bushel on all such coal. June 1, 1888, Standley, Phillips, and Nelson made an agreement with the administratrix of the estate of Oliver Hebert as the representative of his heirs, to the effect that from thenceforth Davis, Nelson, Standley, and Phillips should own one half, and the heirs of Hebert the other half, of coal claim No. 6, and the rents due and to become due under the lease of October 1, 1887. August 5, 1889, Standley, Phillips, and the administratrix of the Hebert estate brought an action against the coal company on this lease for $300 rent. They joined Davis and Nelson as plaintiffs, but the latter repudiated this action, notified the court that the suit was brought without their knowledge, that they claimed nothing under that lease, and withdrew as plaintiffs. The defendant answered that it owed some one $300 for coal mined on the leased premises; that it had taken the two leases above mentioned; that the two sets of lessors claimed title adversely to each other, substantially as above set forth; that the defendant was induced to take the first lease by misrepresentation; that it was without consideration and void; and that if it paid under it the lessors in the second lease would sue, and compel it to pay the rent under that lease also. Thereupon, on the defendant's motion, and without notice to them, Adams, James, Hodges, McBride, Nelson, and Davis, hereafter called the 'interpleaders,' were ordered by the court to interplead, and to set up any claim they had to coal claim No. 6, and the royalty on the coal mined or to be mined therefrom, or to be forever barred of any interest therein. November 13, 1890, they appeared generally, and answered in the action, but by answer, and by motion for their dismissal, seasonably and repeatedly objected that they were not proper parties to the action, and that the pleadings disclosed no facts requiring them to interplead. In July, 1891, the interpleaders James, Adams, Davis, Hodges, McBride, and B. F. Smallwood and John Frinzell, recovered a judgment in the circuit court of the Choctaw Nation, against Standley, Phillips, and the administratrix of the Hebert estate, to the effect that the former were the owners of coal claim No. 6, that the latter be restrained from interfering with their title thereto and royalties therefrom, and that they pay the plaintiffs in that action $25,000 damages. The action on which this judgment was based was commenced in July, 1891, and on appeal the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the Choctaw Nation. In September, 1891, the interpleaders filed a motion for their dismissal, and an amended answer, in which they pleaded that they were not parties to, and claimed nothing under, the plaintiffs' lease; that they owned mining claim No. 6; that the plaintiffs had no interest in it, and that the Choctaw court had so adjudged,--and they prayed to be dismissed, and that, if this prayer was denied, they might recover of the defendant the rent due them under their lease. February 9, 1892, their motion for dismissal was denied, and they excepted. May 4, 1892, Standley, Phillips, and the heirs of Oliver Hebert filed in this action an application for an injunction to restrain the interpleaders and the sheriff of Atoka county from enforcing by execution the judgment of the Choctaw court, and a temporary injunction issued. In the progress of the case, it had been transferred from the law to the equity docket, the heirs of Oliver Hebert had succeeded the administratrix of his estate, and all the parties had repeatedly amended their pleadings. The plaintiffs finally abandoned the discovery by Davis, pleaded as their source of title to the mine the discovery by Hebert and the one-fifth interest in the discovery by Adams, which they claimed to derive from the sale to them by Davis, and insisted that they were entitled to the rent under their lease. The defendant finally pleaded both leases, the conflicting claims of the respective lessors; that, if it paid its rent under the plaintiffs' lease, it might be liable to pay under the lease of the interpleaders, also,--and prayed that it might be permitted to pay the rents into court, and that the rights of the plaintiffs and the interpleaders to them and to the mine might be determined in this suit. The interpleaders, after the order was made denying their motion to be dismissed, filed a pleading in which they alleged their title to the mining claim under the discovery by Adams, the judgment of the Choctaw court quieting their title, and their lease to the defendant, and prayed that they might recover the rents due them under it, that the plaintiffs' lease might be canceled, and that the plaintiffs might be enjoined from interfering with the collection of their rents. April 22, 1893, after the testimony of all parties had been taken, the court below, on motion of the interpleaders, made an order dismissing them from the suit, and vacating the original order requiring them to interplead, and another order vacating the preliminary injunction and dismissing the petition for it. From these orders the plaintiffs and the defendant appeal.

N. B. Maxey, James M. Shackelford, and C. H. Kimball, (Thomas Marcum, S. S. Fears, H. O. Shepard, W. R. Shackelford, and A. A. Osgood, on the briefs,) for appellants.

John H. Rogers and G. G. Randell, (William J. Horton and James F. Read, on the brief,) for appellees.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge, after stating the facts as above, .

We are met at the threshold of this case by the objection that the order dismissing the interpleaders and the order dismissing the plaintiffs' auxiliary petition for an injunction and vacating the temporary injunction issued, while the action between the plaintiffs and the defendant remained pending, were not final decisions, and hence were not appealable to this court. The act creating the circuit courts of appeals provides:

'That the circuit courts of appeals established by this act shall exercise appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal or by writ of error final decision in the district court and the existing circuit courts in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding section of this act unless otherwise provided for by law.' 26 Stat. c. 517, § 6; Supp. Rev. St. p. 903, § 6.

Section 7 of that act permits an appeal from an order granting or continuing an injunction, but, with this exception, no jurisdiction is given to this court to review any order judgment, or decree made in the progress of a case, which does not embody a final decision. A case cannot be brought to this court piecemeal. An order, judgment, or decree which leaves the rights of the parties to the suit affected by it undetermined--one which does not substantially and completely determine the rights of the parties affected by it in that suit--is not reviewable here until a final decision is rendered, nor is an order retaining or dismissing parties defendant, who are charged to be jointly liable to the complainant in the suit, appealable. U.S. v. Girault, 11 How. 22, 32; Hohorst v. Packet Co., 148 U.S. 262, 263, 13 S.Ct. 590. But a final decision which completely determines the rights, in the suit in which it is rendered, of some of...