Carpenter v. Knollwood Cemetery

• Decision Date: 01 July 1912
• Docket Number: 162,Equity.
• Citation: 198 F. 297
• Parties: CARPENTER et al. v. KNOLLWOOD CEMETERY et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

198 F. 297

CARPENTER et al. v. KNOLLWOOD CEMETERY et al.

No. 162, Equity.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

July 1, 1912

Francis E. Baker, C. H. Tyler, O. D. Young, I. H. Ellis, and Francis I. McCanna, for complainants.

Atherton N. Hunt and A. L. Harwood, for defendant Knollwood Cemetery.

Joseph W. Lund, for defendant Beacon Trust Co.

Warren Garfield, Whiteside & Lamson, for defendant Puritan Trust Co.

Barney & Lee and Thomas Z. Lee, for intervener John J. Cameron.

Wendell P. Murray, pro se.

COLT Circuit Judge.

This case is now before the court on demurrer to the bill. The grounds of demurrer are set forth in defendants' brief as follows:

(1) The complainants are not entitled to the relief sought.

(2) The subject-matter in dispute is less than $2,000.

(3) The complainants on their bill do not appear as shareowners of record, and are therefore not entitled to maintain this suit.

(4) The complainants have a complete and adequate remedy at law.

(5) The sixth prayer of the complainants' bill is vague uncertain, and inconsistent with any of the other prayers of said bill.

(6) The bill sets forth inconsistent states of facts.

(7) The several prayers of the complainants' bill are inconsistent, in no sense alternative, and the relief sought irreconcilable.

(8, 9 10) Divers persons not at present parties to the bill are necessary and indispensable parties.

1. The bill prays for the appointment of a receiver, for an injunction, and for an account. Assuming the allegations of the bill, which are well pleaded, to be true, I am not prepared to hold that the bill does not set forth a cause for equitable relief; and it follows that this ground of demurrer is not well taken. In disposing of this ground of demurrer, I do not deem it necessary to consider in detail the allegations of the bill, as the bill has already been before the court, as well as before a master, in connection with the motion for a preliminary injunction.

2. The second ground of demurrer, that the subject-matter in dispute is less than $2,000, is overruled for the following reasons:

The bill alleges that this suit is brought by the complainants in behalf of themselves and all other owners of landholders' shares who are similarly situated, seeking, among other things, to protect the interests of the lands of the defendant corporation as against a proposed sale of such lands.

'Where a suit is brought by one or more, for themselves, and all others of a class jointly interested, for the relief of the whole class, the aggregate interest of the whole class constitutes the matter in dispute.' 1 Foster's Federal Practice (4th Ed.) Sec. 16k, p. 107, and cases cited.

Since this case is governed by this general rule, it is clear that the matter in dispute is far in excess of the statutory requirement.

3. With respect to the third ground of demurrer, that the complainants in their bill do not appear as shareholders of record, it is sufficient to refer to the ninth paragraph of the bill, which reads as follows:

'Ninth. That said John J. Cameron contract provided in sections 3 and 4 thereof that the one-half of the proceeds to be realized from the sale of the use of lots and plats in the cemetery should be divided into fifteen thousand (15,000) equal shares, which shares should be distributed to and among said Cameron and his associates named in said contract according to their several interests, and that one or more certificates should be issued to each of said persons for his share, and the said shares should be personal property and transferable by the said persons or their legal representatives or assigns on the books of the said cemetery corporation upon the surrender of the certificates, the same as stock is usually transferable; that said Knollwood Cemetery, pursuant to said authority, issued the fifteen thousand (15,000) landowners' shares mentioned therein to the following named persons, to wit: John J. Cameron, Samuel I. Knight, Reese Carpenter, Leonard W. Ross, Daniel H. Watson, and Thomas D. Husted, all of which were fully paid for and are now outstanding. That said complainant Reese Carpenter now owns 50 of said landowners' shares. That said complainant Caroline L. Carpenter now owns 50 of said landowners' shares. That said complainants Chauncey M. Depew and Chauncey M. Depew, Jr., together now own 266 of said landowners' shares. That said complainant Samuel I. Knight now owns 312 of said landowners' shares. That said complainant Gardiner Wetherbee now owns 100 of said landowners' shares. That said complainant Charles W. Carpenter now owns 226 of said landowners' shares. That said complainant James B. Murray now owns 800 of said landowners' shares. That the original owners of said landowners' shares or their assigns are in equity the actual owners of said land, and are the principals for whom the trust created under the terms of the Cameron contract was established, having paid a good and valuable consideration for same.'

In my opinion, reading this paragraph as a whole, the allegations of...