Crawford v. Courtney, Civ. No. 70-6-M.
| Decision Date | 31 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 70-6-M. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | Hilda C. CRAWFORD, widow, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Paul COURTNEY, Thomas Dillow, Edwin F. Pope and Floyd Simons, as Trustees of Bolivar Heights, West Virginia, Pentecostal Church or their successors in office, Defendants. |
James E. Crawford, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiffs.
Peter L. Chakmakian, Harpers Ferry, W. Va., for defendants.
All of the parties before this Court, both plaintiffs and defendants, are parties defendant in a condemnation proceeding before the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia.
Chronologically, according to the initial pleading of plaintiffs here, a state court condemnation action affecting certain land in Jefferson County, West Virginia, was commenced on June 15, 1970. Plaintiffs allege that these condemnation proceedings were not contested and that the sum of $29,400.00 was deposited by the State of West Virginia with the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Plaintiffs seek to "* * * prove through proper evidence that they are entitled to the sum deposited in escrow, $29,400.00, in Jefferson County Court, West Virginia."
The defendants in this Court have filed their motion to dismiss insisting that "* * * all matters and issues involved herein are involved in and fully determinable by proceedings already pending in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia, * * *"
Chronologically, according to the affidavit of Mary L. Riggleman, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, which is attached to defendants' motion to dismiss, the West Virginia Department of Highways filed a petition in condemnation in said Circuit Court on the 27th day of May, 1970. According to the heading of the affidavit of the Circuit Clerk of Jefferson County, the style of the condemnation litigation is "West Virginia Department of Highways and William S. Ritchie, Jr., West Virginia Commissioner of Highways, Petitioners, vs. Civil Action No. 1504, Paul Courtney, Thomas Dillow, Edwin F. Pope, and Floyd Simons as trustees of Bolivar Heights, West Virginia, Pentecostal Church or their successors in office, Hilda C. Crawford, widow; Ernest S. Crawford and Jenny Crawford, his wife, Thea Lucas and Melvin Lucas, her husband; Dorothy Piper and William Piper, her husband; Hilda Blaylock and Fred Blaylock, her husband; Leroy Crawford, widower; Larry Leroy Crawford; Deborah C. Crawford, and infant under the age of twenty-one years and Ernes Steven Crawford, an infant under the age of twenty-one years, defendants."
The affidavit of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County further states that on June 25, 1970, $29,400.00 was deposited with the clerk's office, "* * * with notice of deposit received in said office on the 27th day of June, 1970."
The Circuit Clerk's affidavit in support of the motion to dismiss in this Court further alleges that "On the 23rd day of July, 1970, Petition and Application to the Court for an Order directing the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County to distribute and release to the said Co-Defendants the entire condemnation award of Twenty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Dollars ($29,400.00), paid into said Court by the West Virginia Department of Highways and by virtue of Co-Defendants superior right and claim to said award over any other Claimant, if any."
The Clerk's affidavit concludes that on August 4, 1970, a motion for continuance was filed, stating that proceedings had been instituted in this Court, between the co-defendants in the state condemnation action. Apparently the Circuit Court of Jefferson County stayed the state court condemnation distribution action on the strength of said motion for continuance.
In addition to their motion to dismiss, the defendants have also answered, and following a motion for extension of time to plead by Hilda C. Crawford, plaintiff, the Court received and docketed a "Request for Hearing" by plaintiff, as to defendants' motion to dismiss, and a further "Motion to Retain Jurisdiction."
The issues raised on defendants' motion to dismiss have been briefed by counsel for the respective parties.
Regardless of the apparent confusion of dates in the pleadings, there is no question or doubt that the subject matter of the litigation in this Court is also the subject matter of litigation in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia. Regardless of the confusion of dates there is no question that the parties in this Court, both plaintiffs and defendants, are the parties defendant in the action pending before the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia. Also, regardless of any confusion arising from the pleadings before this Court, there is no question that the litigation in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, West Virginia, is in fact an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the "West Virginia Department of Highways and William S. Ritchie, West Virginia Commissioner of Highways," and that this Department and its Commissioner are a substantial, active and acting arm of the State of West Virginia.
Further, regardless of any confusion that may be apparent from the pleadings in this case, there is no question that the real estate in which the parties before this Court claim an interest, has proceeded, through the condemnation action, to ownership in a department of the State of West Virginia; the assets and proceeds have been deposited with the state court, and the sole and only step yet remaining to be considered in that court is the proper distribution of the "just compensation" awarded and paid for the taking of the land.
Plaintiffs urge in their "Declaration," that jurisdiction in this Court is based on "* * * the requisite diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy are present as per Title 28, Section 1332 (a), U.S.C.A." The plaintiffs allege that they and "the matter in controversy has a value of $29,400.00, inclusive of interest and costs."
Plaintiffs here seek the funds on a theory that the property subjected to the condemnation proceedings was conveyed for the purpose of providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Courtney
...entitled to the fund apparently have been stayed, pending the outcome of the federal litigation.1 From an order of the district court, 320 F.Supp. 964, granting the trustees' motion to dismiss, the heirs have While it is true that federal courts are not free to pick and choose what cases wi......