Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Frick
| Decision Date | 27 February 1903 |
| Docket Number | 9. |
| Citation | 120 F. 688 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH TRUST CO. et al. v. FRICK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
H. M Hinkley and H. A. Fuller, for plaintiffs.
Henry C. Terry and Willard, Warren & Knapp, for defendant.
This is a bill in equity, brought against Mary E. Frick, a citizen and resident of New Jersey, by the Commonwealth Trust Company, assignee for the benefit of creditors of Abraham S Patterson, in conjunction, as coplaintiff, with Mary M Patterson, the executrix of the said Abraham S. Patterson who is now deceased. It seems from the bill that Mr. Patterson in his lifetime had a one-third interest in certain letters patent relating to machinery for the manufacture of structural tubing, Mrs. Frick having another third, and Thomas J. Price the other. It is charged by the plaintiffs that Mrs. Frick and Mr. Price, making use of this patent, formed various partnerships, and entered into numerous agreements, the details of which are given in the bill, from which large profits were derived, and the suit is brought to compel an accounting by Mrs. Frick for Mr. Patterons's share, which it is claimed that she received. The bill was originally filed in the common pleas of Montour county, and, Mrs. Frick, being a nonresident of the state, a writ of foreign attachment was issued upon it in pursuance of the provisions of the Pennsylvania statute, Act May 23, 1887 (P.L. 163); and, the case having been removed by the defendant into this court, and a motion to remand refused, it now comes up on a rule taken on the plaintiffs to show cause of action, and why the attachment should not be dissolved. This is in accordance with the prevailing state practice with respect to such writs in action at law (2 Troubat & Haly Pract. § 2271); and it must be regarded as having been adopted and carried forward by the statute, so far as applicable, in extending the writ to other cases. Had the case remained in the state court, therefore, the present rule would have been undoubtedly available to the defendant, and the federal court is invested with the same authority to entertain it. Cady v. Associated Colonies (C.C.) 119 F. 420. It may seem somewhat out of place in strict equity practice to move the court in this way, but it calls for no more, after all, than an examination of the plaintiffs' bill to see whether they have a case on the merits, and to relieve the defendant in a summary way from the oppressive effect of the attachment if they have not (Vienne v. McCarty, 1 Dall. 154, 1 L.Ed. 79); a control over the case which is equitable in character, and to be exercised, therefore, in this forum as much as in any other. In the case in hand a large amount of property has been seized on the writ, and bail in the sum of $40,000 is demanded to dissolve it; so that the defendant is liable to serious injury unless she can obtain the present relief, if otherwise entitled to it.
It seems to me that no extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial