Bonner v. Smith
Decision Date | 15 September 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 3423.,3423. |
Citation | 114 F. Supp. 895 |
Parties | BONNER et al. v. SMITH et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma |
Paul & McPheron, Durant, Okl., for plaintiffs.
Charles R. Nesbitt, Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants.
The plaintiffs, Thea Bonner and Lee Statler, citizens of Oklahoma, have filed a motion to remand this action to quiet title to the District Court of Coal County, Oklahoma, the court in which this action originally was instituted.
The removing defendants, Mrs. Clay Smith, James C. Statler, Mrs. Cecil Morgan and William Stewart Statler, citizens of Texas, urge that although certain resident defendants are joined in this action that this Court has jurisdiction for the reason that a "separate and independent controversy" exists between the resident plaintiffs and the nonresident removing defendants.1 Contrarily, plaintiffs insist that only a single issue or controversy is involved, the merchantability of plaintiffs' title, and, that all parties defendant, resident and nonresident are indispensable to the complete adjudication of this lone issue.2
The Court believes that the plaintiffs improperly apply the principle of indispensability due to a misconception of the true nature of actions to quiet title. Although any person whose right may cast a cloud upon a title must be included in an action to quiet title in order to achieve marketability under the court's final decree, parties having claims based upon different sources of title or by virtue of liens springing forth from distinct origins may as between any two parties or classes of parties litigate their differences without the joinder of other claimants.3 As between the parties there can be a final determination of the controversy without the presence of others;4 in relation to each other none of the definable classes of parties having a right in connection with a title fall within the scope of the definition of an indispensable party as sanctioned by our Court in Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations v. Seitz; that is, "one who has such an interest in the subject-matter of the controversy that a final decree cannot be rendered between the other parties to the suit without radically and injuriously affecting his interest, or without leaving the controversy in such a situation that its final determination may be inconsistent with equity and good conscience."5 Thus, in the instant case, the plaintiffs could bring an action against the different resident lienholders without joining the nonresident defendants who make a claim to title from a common origin; or conversely, the plaintiffs could bring suit against the nonresident title claiming defendants without joining the resident lienholders. Either cause could be prosecuted to completion and result in the quieting of title between the parties, although of course without prejudice to the rights of the claimants not made parties to the suit. All persons having rights which cast clouds upon a title are certainly proper parties and their joinder is highly desirable from the viewpoint of plaintiffs' convenience, but the absence of one or more does not defeat the court of jurisdiction.
The Oklahoma statute which authorizes the joining of claimants regardless how varied the bases for claim be, recognizes the expediency of such a joinder.6 However, this procedural statutory authority to join various claims does not of itself merge the separate and independent claims into a singular substantive claim.7
Although section 1441(c)8 in effect since 1948, permits the removal of a separate cause of action but not of a separable controversy unless it constitutes a separate and independent claim, the quiet title decisions rendered under the earlier sections dealing with removability of "separable controversies" lend considerable aid in appraising the inherent nature and character of actions to quiet title.
In the early case of Bates v. Carpentier,9 where the action was brought against a number of defendants for the purpose of obtaining an adjudication of all claims adverse to the complainant, the Court held that the suit was severable as to each defendant. In refuting the plaintiff's argument that the removing defendant had no right to make several a claim which plaintiff had chosen to make joint, the Court said:10
* * *"
The instant case is susceptible to the same logic. There is no assertion that the resident and removing nonresident defendants claim title jointly or under one common source; although all claims of defendants are adverse to plaintiff such claims are also diverse and adverse between and among the separate classes of defendants.
A similar analyses is made in Carothers v. McKinley Mining & Smelting Co. wherein the Court said:11
(Emphasis supplied.)
In McMullen v. Halleck Cattle Co., the plaintiff sued to quiet title to the use of a portion of the waters of a creek, and made defendants ten persons, all arranged in groups, one of which was the removing defendant, a nonresident cattle company. The complaint gave no indication that the appropriation or claim of the different groups of defendants was in any way connected with each other, except that each defendant was interested in the same stream, the waters of which were insufficient to answer the aggregate demands of all. The Court reasoned:12
The separate and independent claims of various classes of defendants in quiet title actions must not be confused with the joint nature of claims recognized by the courts where the action is specifically limited to ejectment.13 In differentiating between ejectment and a suit to quiet title in regard to separability the Supreme Court of Colorado in Miller v. Buyer remarked:14
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IN RE GEN. ADJUDICATION OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER
...contend that the cases of Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Stanolind Oil and Gas Co., 251 F.2d 412 (8th Cir. 1958) and Bonner v. Smith, 114 F.Supp. 895 (D.Okl.1953) suggest a contrary answer. Both of those cases indicated that separate and independent claims could be carved out against indivi......
-
Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Stanolind Oil & G. Co.
...title which had been removed to the federal court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(c), the court, in Bonner v. Smith, 1953, D.C. Okl., 114 F.Supp. 895, at page 896, "Although any person whose right may cast a cloud upon a title must be included in an action to quiet title in order......
-
Rosen v. Rozan
...named defendants." 251 F.2d at page 415. This case, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable. The same is true of Bonner v. Smith, D.C.E.D.Okl.1953, 114 F.Supp. 895, 898, where resident defendants were joined "for the sole purpose of barring any claim of lien for unpaid ad valorem and inhe......