Coffman v. Sangston

• Decision Date: 30 August 1871
• Citation: 62 Va. 263
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: COFFMAN v. SANGSTON & als.

62 Va. 263

COFFMAN v. SANGSTON & als.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

August 30, 1871

1. There is a decree by default against the defendant, and he gives notice to the counsel of the plaintiff, that he will move the judge in vacation to reverse the same, and to make such order in the cause as might be deemed just and proper. This notice is not served on the plaintiffs, but on their counsel in the cause. The judge may properly refuse to entertain the motion, on the ground that the notice was too vague and indefinite to warrant the court to amend or reverse the decree, and also because it had not been served on the plaintiff. And for the same reasons the appellate court may dismiss the appeal as improvidently allowed.

2. If it appears from the bill that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the suit, the objection may be made by demurrer. If this does not appear on the bill, the objection may be taken by plea, or at the hearing of the cause. But if the objection is not taken until the hearing if it appears from any part of the record that the plaintiff has an interest in the subject matter of the suit, the appellate court will not reverse the decree because such interest is not stated in the bill.

3. When the plaintiff has an interest in the subject matter of a suit, the bill may be amended, and other persons having the same interest, may be joined as co-plaintiffs.

4. S sues C in equity. In the bill he describes himself as secretary of the B society, and says that he placed in the hands of C certain debts for collection, some of which C had collected; and that C refused to pay over the money or account with S. It may be presumed from these averments that S had an interest in the subject matter of the suit; and the bill may be amended making other members of the society co-plaintiffs, and averring the interest of S and the other plaintiffs in the subject.

5. B society is a voluntary society, composed of between four and five hundred members. Some of them may sue C in equity for the benefit of all, for an account and for payment of the money collected, and the return of the evidences of debt unpaid. And the court has jurisdiction on the ground, either of discovery or from the difficulty of proceeding at law.

6. Courts of equity have jurisdiction in matters of account involving the transactions and dealings of trustees and agents, wherever it appears that a discovery is necessary, or there are mutual accounts between the parties, or the remedy at law is not plain, simple and free from difficulty.

7. Though the notice for taking depositions, and taking the account by the commissioner, is not filed, yet, as the record says the depositions were taken pursuant to notice, and it appears that the defendant claimed commissions before the commissioner, it will be presumed in the appellate court, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that notice was given.

8. The report of a commissioner having been completed on the 10th of April 1869, and the decree made on the 22d of October following, in the absence of anything showing the contrary it will be presumed by the appellate court, that the report and account were returned and acted on according to the requirements of the statute.

This was a suit in equity in the Circuit court of Rockingham county, brought by Lawrence Sangston against Samuel A Coffman. The bill stated that Lawrence Sangston, secretary of the Baltimore Agricultural Aid Society, about the 18th of July 1866, placed, for collection, in the hands of S. A Coffman of the county of Rockingham, certain debts owing by parties in said county, a list of which he files as an exhibit. That Coffman had collected a portion of these debts but to what amount, or of which of the debtors, the plaintiff was not informed. That plaintiff had repeatedly applied to Coffman and requested him to come to an account for the money he had collected upon the said debts, and pay over to the plaintiff the amount he had received, and to deliver to him all the bonds and notes not collected; but that Coffman had not complied with his request, and refuses to do so. And making Coffman a party defendant, he calls upon him to answer; he asks for an account, and for payment of the amount collected, and the delivery of the other bonds and notes not collected to the plaintiff.

This bill was taken for confessed in June 1868. In July 1868, Lawrence Sangston, George S. Brown and seven others filed an amended bill in the cause. After setting out the statements of the original bill, and that it had been taken for confessed, they state the plaintiff, Lawrence Sangston, was secretary of the Baltimore Agricultural Aid Society, and a member thereof, and was invested with full authority to collect the debts due the said society, for the benefit of said society; though in fact the debts placed in the hands of Coffman were due to the members of the society, who are very numerous, numbering some four or five hundred. That the society was organized for the purpose of furnishing to the people of the Southern States farming implements, seeds and other necessaries for agricultural purposes; that the funds were raised by voluntary subscriptions; that the society was never incorporated; that local agents were appointed in different counties to endorse and forward applications for such articles as were ordered, and to receive, collect and remit to the plaintiff, Lawrence Sangston, secretary of the society, the notes of the individuals who purchased such implements, for the payment of the price thereof; the proceeds of which sales were for the benefit of the members of said society. That Coffman had failed to pay over the moneys collected by him, or to account or deliver the notes; and as the members of the society are too numerous to sue in their own names, the plaintiffs sue for themselves and all other members of the society. The prayer was the same as in the original bill.

In September 1868, the cause was referred to a commissioner to settle the account of Coffman as agent for the collection of the debts in the bill mentioned, and to ascertain what money, if any, he has collected, and what remains uncollected; and the commissioner was authorized to examine any of the parties under oath.

On the 10th of April 1869, the commissioner returned his report. From this report it appeared that there had been placed in the hands of Coffman for collection, bonds amounting to, of principal money, $6,041.38. That he had collected, after allowing him all his credits, $4,563.79; and the bonds and notes remaining uncollected amounted to $2,045.67, of principal. One of the bonds placed in the hands of Coffman was that of John P. Brock and Joseph Layman, for $3,816.38. Brock, in his deposition, taken before the commissioner, says that he had paid to Coffman about $3,700, as near as he can state; but he will furnish the commissioner with an aggregate statement of the amount, to be taken as a part of his answer to this question. That statement does not appear on the record, nor is there any reference to it. Coffman is charged with the $3,700. The other collections by Coffman, and with which he is charged, are proved by the parties to the bonds who made the payments.

No notice of taking the depositions is filed, but the commissioner returns them, with his report, and says in the caption, depositions taken pursuant to notice; and he refers the question of commissions upon his collections, made by Coffman, to the court; and it appears from the decree as well as from the bonds themselves, that Coffman had filed the bonds he had not collected with the commissioner. The depostion of Sangston was filed in the cause, and it sustains the allegations of the bill. This deposition was taken under a commission, and the notice is returned with it.

The cause came on to be heard on the 22d of October 1869, when the amended bill was taken for confessed, and the court made a decree that the complainants recover against Coffman the sum of $4,378, with interest from the date of the receipt upon...