Abiaca Drainage Dist. of Leflore, Holmes, and Carroll Counties, Miss. v. Albert Theis & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 March 1939
• Docket Number: 33616
• Parties: ABIACA DRAINAGE DIST. OF LEFLORE, HOLMES, AND CARROLL COUNTIES, MISS. et al. v. ALBERT THEIS & SONS, INC
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

187 So. 200

185 Miss. 110

ABIACA DRAINAGE DIST. OF LEFLORE, HOLMES, AND CARROLL COUNTIES, MISS. et al. v. ALBERT THEIS & SONS, INC

No. 33616

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division B

March 13, 1939

Suggestion Of Error Overruled April 10, 1939.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Leflore county HON. S. F. DAVIS Judge.

Action by Albert Theis & Sons, Inc., against the Abiaca Drainage District of Leflore, Holmes and Carroll Counties, Miss., and others for mandamus to compel payment of bonds and levy of tax. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and suit dismissed.

Reversed and judgment dismissing the suit.

Arthar Bruce, of Greenwood, and A. M. Pepper, of Lexington, for appellants.

The statute under which these bonds were issued, chapter 195 of the Laws of Mississippi of 1912, section 4492 of the Mississippi Code of 1930, provides that "all bonds and evidences of indebtedness issued by the commissioners under the terms of this article shall be secured by a lien on all lands and railroads subject to taxation under this article in an amount not to exceed the amount of benefits assessed against such lands and railroads."

This court has very recently held the law on this identical proposition to be this: "The argument that there can be no preference among the bondholders of an insolvent taxing district is not controverted. That position is sustained by numerous authorities. When the taxing power is exhausted and there are not sufficient funds to pay all indebtedness in full, there can be no preference--creditors must share pro rata unless the law provides otherwise, and it does not here."

Teoc Sub-Drainage Dist. v. Halliwell, 180 Miss. 720, 178 So. 84; First National Bank of Meridian v. Commissioners of Lake Cormorant Dr. Dist., 167 Miss. 354, 147 So. 807.

The instant case is, in our opinion, very much stronger than the Lake Cormorant case, supra, for the reason that in the instant case there was only one issue of bonds, all authorized by the court in one order, all printed and sold at one and the same time to one firm, and all used for the purpose of excavating the canal of the district. How can it be said that one bond should be paid ahead of another, or that there is any priority whatever, when it is admitted by the demurrer that the district is insolvent, that not exceeding 30 percent of the indebtedness of the district can be paid and that the district will never be able to meet its obligations?

Moran v. State ex rel. Montgomery, 149 So. 477, 111 Fla. 429; Norris v. Montezuma Valley Irrigation Dist., 248 F 369; Duncan Townsite Co. v. Lane, 245 U.S. 308, 38 S.Ct. 99, 62 L.Ed. 309; Ex Parte Skinner & Eddy Corp., 265 U.S. 86, 44 S.Ct. 446, 68 L.Ed. 912; Buckwalter v. Lakeland, 112 Fla. 215, 150 So. 514, 90 A. L. R. 713; State v. Knott, 176 So. 113; Jewell v. Superior, 135 F. 19, 198 U.S. 583, 49 L.Ed. 1173, 25 S.Ct. 801; Thomas v. Patterson, 61 Colo. 547, 159 P. 34; Meyers v. Idaho Falls, 52 Idaho 81, 11 P.2d 626; State ex rel. Boyd v. Mills, 138 Wash. 681, 234 P. 1042, 238 P. 581; Vanderpoel v. Mt. Ephriam, 168 A. 575, 89 A. L. R. 862.

Much has been written upon the subject involved, and the authorities are not entirely harmonious upon the question when the pendency of a former action between the same parties will abate one subsequently brought. It is often said that the causes of action involved in the two suits must be identical and the relief demanded the same. 3 Enc. L. & P., (3 Ed.), 1218. But the ultimate inquiry seems to be whether a judgment in the first, if one be rendered, would be conclusive upon the parties in respect to the matters involved in the second action. If so, a plea in abatement should be sustained.

Whitcomb v. Hardy, 68 Minn. 265, 71 N.W. 263; Breault v. Merrill & R. Lbr. Co., 72 Minn. 143, 75 N.W. 122; 23 Cyc. 1239; Haas v. Righeimer, 220 Ill. 193, 77 N.E. 69; Van Vleck v. Anderson, 136 Iowa, 366, 113 N.W. 853; Disbrow Mfg. Co. v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 115 Minn. 434, 132 N.W. 913, L. R. A. 1918, 3.

In some cases the rule in determining the identity of causes of action was said to be that the identity would be established if the judgment in one was a bar to a prosecution of the other. Another test is, will the same evidence be necessary in both actions? Some cases hold that the identity is established if the same relief could be had in the prior action.

And a bill in equity pending to determine the right to publish notices and ordinances was held to abate an application for mandamus to compel the city council to designate the paper.

People ex rel. Staats-Zeitung Co. v. Chicago, 53 Ill. 424.

And a bill in chancery, pending, which involved the removal of the county seat, was held sufficient to abate a proceeding in mandamus to determine the vote on the removal of a county seat.

People ex rel. Wheaton v. Wiant, 48 Ill. 263.

An action of mandamus to compel the granting of a license for a pool room, pending in the superior court, was held to present a good ground of abatement of a suit in the supreme court for mandamus for the same cause.

Goytins v. McAleer, 4 Cal.App. 655, 88 P. 991; McCormick v. Gross, 135 Cal. 302, 67 P. 766; Page v. Letcher, 11 Utah 134, 39 P. 502; State ex rel. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. North Lincoln Street R. Co., 34 Neb. 634, 52 N.W. 369; People ex rel. Mitchell v. Warfield, 20 Ill. 160; U.S. ex rel. Coffman v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 114 F. 682; State ex rel. Nead v. Nolte, 146 N.E. 51, 37 A. L. R. 1426.

In all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the court that has first possession of the matter should be left to decide it.

State of Vermont v. Van Ness, 199. A. 759, 117 A. L. R. 415; Trees v. Glenn, 319 Pa. 487, 181 A. 579, 102 A. L. R. 304.

The court erred in rendering the judgment in mandamus herein.

It is our claim that all bonds of the district should be paid pro rata out of the funds of the district; that the funds should not be exhausted in the payment of any one bondholders' bonds; that all the bonds of the district, being all issued at the same time, and predicated upon the same security, under the same order of the court, upon the same assessment of benefits, and the district being insolvent and unable to meet its obligations, should be paid pro rata. The judgment of the court certainly gives a preference to these bondholders in awarding the writ of mandamus for the payment of all the funds on hand and all the funds to be collected, and all the funds which the plea in abatement shows can ever be collected, to this one bondholder to pay its bonds in full in preference to any and all other past due bonds and interest. The record shows that there are liabilities of over $ 84, 000, and assets of only $ 22, 500. Why should a preference be shown these particular bondholders at the expense of all other bondholders who will not get one single cent for their bonds if the decision of the lower court is allowed to stand?

This court recently decided there could be no preference among bondholders of an insolvent taxing district.

Teoc Sub-Drainage District v. Halliwell & Cooper, 180 Miss. 720, 178. So. 84.

The chancery court had exclusive jurisdiction of this proceeding under section 4424 of the Mississippi Code of 1930.

James McClure, of Sardis, for appellee.

The demurrer to the plea in abatement should have been sustained.

We submit that it is the law that before one action can be pleaded in abatement of another, that it is necessary that they involve the same cause of action. This is the general rule of law.

1 Am. Jur., page 31, par. 22, and page 34, par. 27; Fort Worth (Independent) School Dist. v. Aetna C. & S. Co., 77 A. L. R. 222.

When the petition for the writ of mandamus is examined and compared with the cause of action as alleged in the former action which is pleaded in abatement, it readily appears that the causes of action as made by the two pleadings are not the same, nor do they seek the same relief, nor are they between the same parties.

1 Am. Jur., page 35, par. 28; State v. Large, 145 So. 346, 164 Miss. 318.

Pleas in abatement on the ground of the pendency of another action are not favored by the court.

Grenada Bank v. Bourke, 70 So. 449, 110 Miss. 342; Anderson v. Newman, 60 Miss. 532; Griffin v. Bd. of Miss. Levee Comrs., 15 So. 107, 71 Miss. 767.

That the two actions are not the same is further shown by the fact that the relief sought therein is not the same.

1 Am. Jur., page 37, par. 31 and page 40, par. 36; 23 L.Ed. 488; L. R. A. 1918A, page 31; County Ct. v. White, 79 W.Va. 475, L. R. A. 1917D 660; Caster v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 102 Kan. 318, L. R. A. 1918E., 299, State ex rel. Nead v. Nolte, 111 Ohio St. 486, 146 N.E. 51, 37 A. L. R. 1426.

In the subsequent suit, Albert Theis & Sons instituted the same as plaintiff against the commissioners of the Abiaca Drainage District, whereas, the former action was instituted by the commissioners of the district against Albert Theis & Sons, Inc., and some twelve other defendants, as well as against unknown defendants.

Before an action can be successfully pleaded in abatement of another, it is not only necessary that both suits be pending at the same time for the same cause of action, but it is essential that the matter in issue shall be between the same or substantially the same parties. If the parties are not the same, the first action cannot be pleaded in abatement.

1 Am. Jur., page 31, par. 22, and page 32, par. 23.

The former action was commenced by the commissioners of the Abiaca Drainage District against Albert Theis & Sons, Inc. who was named defendant along with some ten or twelve other parties, as well as with all unknown holders of the bonds of the district, whereas, the case at bar was instituted by Albert Theis &...