Appeal of Ahl

• Decision Date: 21 October 1889
• Docket Number: 438,53
• Citation: 18 A. 477,129 Pa. 49
• Parties: APPEAL OF Q. P. AHL; APPEAL OF P. A. AHL. [Q. P. AHL v. HARRISBURG ETC. R. CO. ET. AL.]
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

18 A. 477

129 Pa. 49

APPEAL OF Q. P. AHL; APPEAL OF P. A. AHL. [Q. P. AHL v. HARRISBURG ETC. R. CO. ET. AL.]

Nos. 53, 438

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 21, 1889

Argued May 3, 1889

Original Opinion of October 21, 1889, Reported at 129 Pa. 49 18 A. 475.

OPINION

P. A. AHL'S APPEAL.

MR JUSTICE WILLIAMS:

This appeal is from the same decree as that of Q. P. Ahl, which we have just considered and dismissed, and raises a question of jurisdiction.

The bill was against P. A. Ahl, T. W. Ahl, C. W. Ahl, and the Harrisburg & Potomac Railroad Company. The master found against the plaintiff, Q. P. Ahl, on every fact alleged in the bill as the basis of the relief prayed for against each of the defendants, and recommended that the bill be dismissed as to all of them except P. A. Ahl, the appellant. It would have been dismissed as to him also, but for the fact that the evidence disclosed a circumstance not averred in the bill, viz., that he was indebted to Q. P. Ahl. This indebtedness was for loans and advances made to aid in completing the section between Langsdorf and Jacksonville, and amounted to $5,302.48. The interest was computed at $3,256.21, making an aggregate of $8,558.69. For this sum the master recommended a decree, which was made by the court, and from which this appeal was taken.

This decree was thought by the master and the court below to be justified by the familiar rule that, where a court of equity has once obtained jurisdiction of a cause of action, it may retain it for purposes of equitable relief not prayed for in the bill, but disclosed by the evidence: Allison's App., 77 Pa. 221. Whether the decree made in this case is justified by the rule invoked, is the only question presented on this record. It will be noticed that the rule is predicated of cases in which the court has acquired jurisdiction. If the court has no jurisdiction, it can make no decree. Mere service of process subjects the defendant to the jurisdiction of the court for certain preliminary and special purposes; but, unless the bill discloses a cause of action within the cognizance of a court of equity, the defendant must be allowed to depart the court. The question whether the plaintiff's cause of action is one that entitles him to be heard in a court of equity, must be determined, in the first instance, from the face of his bill. If the facts stated therein are such as entitle him to equitable relief prima facie, the defendant cannot oust the jurisdiction by his answer denying the facts stated in the bill, but such answer raises an issue or issues to be decided upon hearing. The question of jurisdiction of the cause of action must be determined, in the first instance, by an examination of the bill. If this discloses a case for equitable intervention, the defendant must answer and enter upon his defence. After hearing, the question of jurisdiction depends on the proofs: Adams's Appeal, 113 Pa. 449.

In the case now before us, the bill made a case against each of the defendants. When the proofs were heard, the plaintiff failed to sustain the averments of the bill against either of the defendants, and the master found against him on every question of fact raised. He had alleged a partnership with T W. Ahl, and prayed for dissolution and an account. The master found that no partnership existed, and that the bill ought to be dismissed as to T. W. Ahl. The account prayed for against P. A. Ahl was refused, because the master found that the bonds were delivered to him by the plaintiff with full knowledge of the use to which he was to put them. The relief asked against C. W. Ahl was refused for the same reason, and because the bonds were put in his possession pursuant to a voluntary assignment for the benefit of his creditors made by P. A. Ahl to him. As to the railroad company, the bill was dismissed because it appeared that the company had settled with the plaintiff, and delivered to him the bonds necessary to pay for the work and materials on the whole section, at the proper time, and owed nothing to him or to P. A. Ahl whatever. Not a single jurisdictional fact or relation averred in the bill was found to have any existence. How, then, had the court jurisdiction? The case made in the bill was sufficient until hearing, but, on hearing, it was swept away. He came into court and said: "I have a partner from whom I desire to be freed, and to have an account. My bonds are in the hands of those who have no right to them, and they fraudulently withhold them from me." The court hears the proofs, and finds every...