Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3301. |
| Parties | BRADFORD v. INDIANA HARBOR BELT R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
The District Court granted the motion of appellee (an Indiana corporation) to dismiss appellant's bill in equity for discovery in aid of its suit at law. The bill sets out the pleadings at law. The complaint (filed September 29, 1921) states that plaintiff owns a strip of land, about 1,400 feet long, in Cook county, Illinois, with a railroad track thereon connecting the railroad tracks of defendant with those of the Illinois Central Railroad Company; that in 1910 without plaintiff's consent, the defendant possessed itself of said strip of land and railroad, and ever since, except while it was in control of the United States Director of Railroads has held and operated it, moving daily many railroad trains over it; and that he is entitled to, and sues for, rent for use and occupancy by defendant, the reasonable value of which is alleged to be 75 cents for each car and $1 for each locomotive moved over the property. Defendant's answer includes general denial and allegation of acts of plaintiff which estop him from maintaining the action; also of conduct of plaintiff which amounts to his dedication of the property to public use; also of payment, and limitation as to so much of the action as did not accrue within six years before commencement of suit. Plaintiff replied, and the law action was at issue.
The bill charges that plaintiff did not know of defendant's occupation and use of the property until June, 1921; that the material issue of the suit at law is the occupation and extent of use of the property by the defendant, and the amount it charged and received therefor, and the right of defendant as a foreign corporation to do business in the state of Illinois; that the defendant kept books of account and has papers and documents showing the extent of its use of the track and bearing upon the question of defendant's right to transact business in Illinois; and that the plaintiff has no means of ascertaining such facts except through the answers to the interrogatories appended to the bill, and which the plaintiff asks be answered on oath. Preceding the interrogatories is the statement that their answer on oath is asked 'in accordance with equity rule No. 58. ' The interrogatories, 23 in number, are nearly all directed to the question of the number of cars and locomotives moved over the tracks, and the prices charged or received by appellee for this service, during the period from July 10, 1910, to the time of making the answer. A few of them relate to appellee's right to do business in Illinois.
Worth E. Caylor, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Samuel D. Miller, of Indianapolis, Ind., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER and PAGE, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
ALSCHULER Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The interrogatories submitted purport to be in accordance with equity rule No. 58, which authorizes parties to a bill in chancery to file interrogatories for discovery from the opposite party of facts and documents material to the support or defense of that action. Here the discovery sought is not in support or defense of the action wherein it is asked, but of a suit at law, and rule 58 does not apply. But the reference to rule 58 may be discarded as surplusage, leaving the inquiry whether the bill, dismissed on appellee's motion, is under the indicated facts maintainable.
The bill in equity for discovery in aid or defense of actions at law has fallen quite into disuse, since section 724, U.S Rev. St. (Comp. St. Sec. 1469), became effective, which is:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EH Rohde Leather Co. v. Duncan & Sons
...cites: Rev. Stat. § 862 (Comp. St. § 1470; 3 Fed. Stat. Ann. 2d Ed. 171); Rev. Stat. § 861 (Comp. St. § 1468); Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 300 F. 78; Wolcott v. National Electric Signaling Co. (D. C.) 235 F. 224-227; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713-722, 5 S. Ct. 724, 28 ......
-
Matria Healthcare, LLC v. Duthie
...held that the statute only required production at the trial. 221 U.S. at 538, 544-45, 31 S.Ct. 683. See also Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co. 300 F. 78 (7th Cir.1924). Thus, Congress could not have intended when it enacted § 7 of the FAA in 1925 to have authorized arbitrators and dist......
-
Baush Mach. Tool Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America
...discovery have been affirmed where appealability has not been raised. Durant v. Goss, 12 F.(2d) 682 (C. C. A. 6); Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 300 F. 78 (C. C. A. 7); Munger v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 261 F. 921 (C. C. A. 2). Tucker v. Peiler, 297 F. 570 (C. C. A. 2), involv......
-
Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
...retain a bill when the discovery desired has no other purpose than the liquidation of damages." In the case of Bradford v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co. (C. C. A.) 300 F. 78, 81, discovery was refused on the ground that it was not shown that the plaintiff could not obtain all necessary informa......