Beckwith v. Laing
| Citation | 66 S.E. 354,66 W.Va. 246 |
| Parties | BECKWITH v. LAING et al. |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1909 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted March 2, 1909.
Syllabus by the Court.
Ordinarily all persons interested in the subject-matter of a suit in equity should be made parties to the bill, either as plaintiffs or defendants.
However it may be in respect to right to appellate relief, when a trustee, suing as plaintiff and failing to make his cestui que trustent parties, obtains all the relief to which the latter could possibly be entitled, and defect of parties is relied upon in the appellate court for the first time, such imperfection in the bill affords ground of relief in the appellate court, when the objection has been made by demurrer in the court below, before it could be known what the result would be, since the defendant is entitled to have all interested parties bound by the decree. In such case there is no waiver of this right, and the court below at the time of overruling the demurrer, could not know whether injury would result therefrom or not.
A bill filed by a plaintiff in his own right to enforce specific performance of a contract, exhibited with the bill and showing that it was made with the plaintiff as trustee, is demurrable in the trial court for want of necessary parties namely, the beneficiaries in the trust.
If, in the progress of a suit in equity, it develops in any way that one or more of the defendants is a trustee and the beneficiaries of the trust are not made parties, no final decree should be entered in the cause, unless such beneficiaries are made parties by amendment of the bill.
On reversing a decree for want of necessary parties, the appellate court will enter upon no inquiry concerning the merits of the cause; but it will determine whether the subject-matter of the bill is within the jurisdiction of the court of equity.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Raleigh County.
Specific performance by G. S. Beckwith against James Laing and another. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
T. K Laing, File & File, and McGinnis & Hatcher, for appellants.
James Laing, holding a lease of certain coal lands executed by S Lewis Price and others, and purporting to vest an interest or mining rights in him, and desiring to sell and dispose of the same to Geo. S. Beckwith, trustee, entered into a written contract with the latter on the 14th day of March, 1906, which forms the basis of this suit. As the lease did not confer certain privileges and rights desired by Beckwith, the contract just mentioned contemplated the procurement of certain alterations in it by Laing, and the consummation of the sale was made to depend somewhat upon the result of Laing's efforts in this behalf. The contract recited the following imperfections in, or objections to, the lease, in the condition in which it then was: It gave no right to sublet the premises; nor to haul coal through the lands from any other or adjoining lands; nor did it include all the seams of coal in the land. The contract also recited a proposition on the part of Beckwith, trustee, to purchase the lease of Laing at the price of $6,750 in case he should obtain the desired changes. It then recited the payment to Laing of $50 by Beckwith, in consideration of which the former agreed "to use his efforts to get said lease changed" in the respects named, and bound himself to assign and transfer it, when so changed, to Beckwith, trustee, or to such person or corporation as should answer the description of the person to be designated in the lease, if changed, as the lawful person to whom it could be assigned, which sum was to be paid in cash on the date of the assignment. This contract also bound Beckwith, trustee, to purchase the lease from Laing in case the changes or alterations in it should be made. It further provided that Laing should notify Beckwith of the result of his efforts within 10 days from the date of the new lease. A further provision was this: "If the said Laing shall fail to secure all the changes herein provided, but shall obtain the right to assign and transfer said lease, then and in that event the said Beckwith, trustee, is hereby given the exclusive right to purchase said lease as changed, at the price aforesaid and upon the terms aforesaid, at any time within ten days from the date said letter is mailed as aforesaid." Laing obtained all the desired alterations, but in doing so he allowed other alterations to be made, imposing burdens upon the lessee not provided for in the original lease. Instead of notifying Beckwith, he telephoned his son, T. K. Laing, that he had procured the desired changes, and thereupon T. K. Laing on the 23d day of March, 1906, notified Beckwith by letter that the lease had been obtained in the form desired. Discovering the error in a day or two afterwards, T. K. Laing on the 26th of March, 1906, wrote and mailed another letter to Beckwith, in which he inclosed a copy of the new lease, and said he was holding both it and the old one, but was bound to redeliver one of them to the lessors at an early date, and called upon Beckwith to notify him, within 24 hours of the receipt of the letter as to whether he would accept either of them. On the 28th of March Beckwith and McGrath wired him as follows: To this James Laing responded as follows: Then Beckwith wired: On the 2d day of April, 1906, L. F. McGrath, attorney and associate of Beckwith, came to Beckley, W. Va., and called upon James Laing and T. K. Laing and Ashton File, the latter two then acting professedly as attorneys only, and a controversy ensued which resulted in an alleged tender by them of the two leases for McGrath's election, and refusal on his part to accept either, and an alleged tender of the money by McGrath, and refusal on the part of Laing and File to deliver either one of the leases to him. Then this suit was instituted for specific enforcement of the contract, and a lis pendens notice was recorded in the clerk's office of the county court. On the next day Laing assigned the lease to Isadore Meadows, trustee, and he was made a party to the bill. James Laing and Meadows, having unsuccessfully demurred to the bill, filed their separate answers thereto, and depositions were taken, showing great conflict and contradiction, upon which the court pronounced a decree canceling the assignment made to Meadows and requiring Laing to assign the second lease to Beckwith. From this decree, the defendants have appealed.
The contract of March 14, 1906, showing it had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial