Brainard v. Canaday
| Citation | 49 Del. 182,10 Terry 182,112 A.2d 862 |
| Parties | , 49 Del. 182 Katharine R. BRAINARD, Executrix under the Last Will and Testament of Millar Brainard, deceased, and Samuel Vance, Jr., Plaintiffs, v. Ward M. CANADAY, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 30 March 1955 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
James R. Morford, of the firm, Morford & Bennethum, Wilmington, for plaintiffs.
Edwin D. Steel, Jr., of the firm, Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, for defendant.
This action originated as a cause of action in foreign attachment in pursuance to the provisions of Section 3506, Title 10, Delaware Code, 1953. The complaint with the required affidavit was filed on December 22, 1953. A writ of foreign attachment was issued and was served on the same day by the Sheriff upon The Corporation Trust Company, the corporate resident agent of two Delaware corporations, Empire Securities, Inc. and Willys Overland Motors, Inc.
On January 11, 1954, The Corporation Trust Company, resident agent, delivered to the Sheriff a certificate designating the number of shares of stock of Empire Securities, Inc. registered on its books in the name of Ward M. Canaday on December 22, 1953, and stating that no shares of stock of Willys Overland Motors, Inc. were registered in the name of Ward M. Canaday on December 22, 1953, as appeared by the books of Willys Overland Motors, Inc. This certificate is attached to the Sheriff's return and states in part as follows:
'In making this report The Corporation Trust Company makes no concession as to the validity of the attachment herein.'
The Sheriff on the same day, January 11, 1954, filed his return of process with the Prothonotary. The return stated in part that the Sheriff had attached all of the shares of stock in Empire Securities, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, belonging to the defendant 'by serving the within writ personally upon and leaving a true copy thereof, together with a copy of the complaint, with the Assistant Secretary of The Corporation Trust Company, resident agent for Empire Securities, Inc., on December 22, 1953.' By order of the Court, dated April 21, 1954, leave to amend the original return was granted the Sheriff, and the original return was amended to state that all of the shares of stock in Empire Securities, Inc. belonging to the defendant had been attached 'by serving the within writ personally upon and leaving a duplicate original thereof signed by the Prothonotary of New Castle County, with the official seal of the Superior Court of New Castle County and State of Delaware impressed thereon, together with a copy of the complaint, with the Assistant Secretary of The Corporation Trust Company on December 22, 1953.'
On April 9, 1954, defendant, by his counsel, petitioned the Superior Court 'for permission to appear specially for Ward M. Canaday solely for the purpose of moving to quash the writ of foreign attachment, to set aside the Sheriff's return, and to dissolve the purported attachment made under the writ.' The petition was never determined by the Court. No special appearance was entered by the defendant.
The defendant not having appeared during the first term (January Term), the plaintiffs on April 21, 1954, (second term) filed with the Prothonotary a written direction for judgment in compliance with the provisions of Section 3526, Title 10, Delaware Code, 1953, and Rule 55 of this Court. 1
The March Term (second term) of the Superior Court would in due course have adjourned not later than May 3, 1954, immediately prior to the convening of the May Term, 1954. Upon the adjournment of the March Term the judgment by default would have been final pursuant to the direction and the Rule.
On April 26, 1954, the defendant, by counsel, filed with the Prothonotary the following direction:
'Please enter forthwith my general appearance on behalf of Ward M. Canaday, defendant in the above action.'
Copy of notice of appearance was served by the defendant on the same day upon counsel for the plaintiffs:
'You are hereby notified that I am today filing the above direction to the Prothonotary to enter my general appearance for Ward M. Canaday, defendant in the above action.'
On April 27, 1954, defendant's counsel filed a motion to vacate the judgment which the Prothonotary had entered pursuant to plaintiffs' direction as of April 21, 1954. 2
On April 29, 1954, Judge Herrmann entered an order on motion of defendant's counsel, amending the judgment to read as follows:
'And now to wit this 26th day of April, A.D. 1954, judgment by default, pursuant to Rule 55(1) be entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the sum of $567,000.00, plus 6% from January 1, 1953 amounting to $44,982.00, besides costs, etc., such judgment to become final upon the adjournment of the March Term 1954 of the Superior Court in and for New Castle County, in the event that the defendant shall not have entered a general appearance in this cause at the time of the adjournment of the March Term, 1954, of the Superior Court.'
The order directed the Prothonotary to enter in the Judgment Docket, immediately following the judgment so amended and modified, the following quotation:
'The above judgment is entered nunc pro tunc as of 9:23 a. m. Eastern Standard Time, April 26, 1954, pursuant to order of the Superior Court, dated April 29, 1954'.
On April 30, 1954, during the March Term (second term) of the Superior Court the defendant filed an answer to the complaint signed by his counsel, who theretofore on April 26, 1954, had entered a general appearance for him, as above indicated.
The claim asserted by the complaint embraces two causes of action. It is for compensation for services, as brokers, rendered by the plaintiffs to and on behalf of the defendant in bringing about the sale of defendant's controlling stock interest in Willys Overland Motors, Inc. The first cause of action is upon the theory of express contract. The second cause of action is a claim on the quantum meruit, or implied contract.
The answer filed by the defendant in numbered paragraphs 1 to 17, inclusive, consists merely of admissions, denials, and statements of no knowledge of the facts alleged in the corresponding paragraphs of the complaint.
Under paragraphs 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the answer the defendant has set forth certain affirmative defenses. Without attempting to paraphrase the substance set forth under these defenses, I shall quote them as they appear in the answer.
'First Affirmative Defense to the First and Second Causes of Action
'18. Since defendant resided outside of the State of Delaware, simultaneously with the institution of the action plaintiffs caused a writ of foreign attachment to be issued as a means of compelling the defendant to appear in the cause. Although the return of the writ executed by the sheriff states that on December 22, 1953 he attached all of the shares of stock in Empire Securities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with all the rights thereto belonging, or any option to acquire such shares, or any rights or interests in such shares, of the defendant herein, and the sheriff has attached to his return a certificate of The Corporation Trust Company, resident agent for Empire Securities, Inc., certifying that on December 22, 1953, the defendant was the registered owner of 588.7 shares of common stock of Empire Securities, Inc., the fact is that no shares of stock of Empire Securities, Inc., a Delaware corporation, or any rights thereto belonging, or any option to acquire such shares, or any rights or interest in such shares, owned by the defendant have been validly attached, since no certified copy of a writ of attachment was left with the president, cashier, treasurer, any director, or the resident agent of Empire Securities, Inc., as required by § 324(b) of Title 8 of the Code of 1953.
'19. By virtue whereof the process by which the aforementioned property of the defendant was purportedly attached was insufficient to subject said property to the jurisdiction of this Court, and hence was an illegal, and improper means of compelling an appearance by defendant.
'Second Affirmative Defense to the First and Second Causes of Action
'20. Defendant realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraph 18 hereof.
'21. By virtue whereof no valid or proper jurisdiction over the person of the defendant has been acquired, since defendant has been wrongfully and illegally coerced into appearing in this Court to protect and defend himself and his property against the aforementioned [purportedly] invalid attachment, and in order to obtain a determination of the invalidity thereof under pain of suffering a default judgment and resultant sale of said property in the event of his failure to so appear.
'Wherefore, defendant prays that the action be dismissed with costs against plaintiffs.'
The defendant has moved under Rule 12(d) for this Court to hear and determine before trial the first and second affirmative defenses in his answer. The affirmative defenses so pleaded are (1) lack of jurisdiction over the person, and (2) insufficiency of process.
Plaintiffs resist a preliminary hearing and determination of the jurisdictional defenses upon two grounds: (1) that the affirmative defenses are legally insufficient, and, therefore, no issue exists to be tried before trial, and (2) that the Court should act on its own initiative under Rule 12(f) and strike the jurisdictional defenses because of their asserted legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs' counsel takes the position that the sufficiency in law of the affirmative defenses so pleaded may readily be disposed of by the Trial Judge without the necessity of a preliminary hearing and determination thereof.
It is clear to me that there should be a determination of the affirmative defenses prior to a protracted trial on the merits.
In accordance with this conclusion, I entered an order setting a date for the filing of briefs and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canaday v. Superior Court In and For New Castle County
...affirmative defenses raised the same question, viz., the sufficiency of the process of foreign attachment. The Superior Court, Brainard v. Canaday, 112 A.2d 862, first passed upon the sufficiency of the two affirmative defenses and held that the process was invalid, but that, since Canaday ......
-
Canaday v. Superior Court In and For New Castle County
...116 A.2d 678 ... 10 Terry 332, 49 Del. 332 ... Ward M. CANADAY, Petitioner, ... The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Delaware in and for NEW ... CASTLE COUNTY, and the Honorable Charles L. Terry, ... sitting as Judge of said Court, Respondents ... Katharine R. Brainard", Executrix under the Last Will and ... Testament of Miller Brainard, Deceased, and Samuel ... Vance, Jr., Intervening Respondents ... Supreme Court of Delaware ... Sept. 8, 1955 ... Edwin D. Steel, Jr., of Morris, Steel, Nichols & Arsht, Wilmington, for petitioner ... \xC2" ... ...
- State ex rel. Sharp v. 0.62033 Acres of Land in Christiana Hundred, New Castle County
-
Osborn v. White Eagle Oil Co.
...action. Citing Bede Steam Shipping Co. v. New York Trust Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 54 F.2d 658; 10 Okl.Law Review, p. 452; Brainard v. Canalay, 10 Terry, Del., 182, 112 A.2d 862; Alkalaj v. Alkalaj, 1947, 190 Misc. 326, 73 N.Y.S.2d 678 (1947) and other cases of similar It is further argued that th......