Crowell v. Cape Cod Ship-canal Co.
| Decision Date | 06 September 1895 |
| Citation | 41 N.E. 290,164 Mass. 235 |
| Parties | CROWELL et al. v. CAPE COD SHIP-CANAL CO. et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
H.P. Harriman and F.J. Daggett, for plaintiffs.
George Putnam, for defendants.
St.1883 c. 259, incorporating the Cape Cod Ship-Canal Company, by section 19 provides for a deposit by the defendant of the sum of $200,000 with the treasurer of the commonwealth, and that "the supreme judicial court shall have jurisdiction in equity to apply said deposit to the payment of any damages caused by the laying out, construction and maintenance of said canal, and for all claims against said company for labor performed and furnished, and for land or materials taken or used in the construction of said canal." The plaintiffs have recovered a judgment against the Cape Cod Ship-Canal Company, amounting to $2,260.53, for damages occasioned by the taking of their land for the construction of a canal, and seek by this bill in equity, which is brought against the canal corporation and the treasurer of the commonwealth, to have their judgment, with interest, paid out of the sum of $200,000, which was deposited as required by the statute. It appears from the answers of the defendants, which it is agreed are to be taken as true, that there are other claims pending against the defendant corporation by persons who contend that they are entitled to share in the fund, which if allowed, will more than exhaust the fund; and the defendant corporation contends that before the claims of the plaintiffs are ordered to be paid an inquiry should be had to give all persons interested or claiming to be interested in the fund an opportunity to appear and present their claims, in order that the fund, if not sufficient to pay all claims that may be allowed, may be equitably distributed. On the facts stated we have no doubt that the contention of the defendants should prevail. The fund in question is for the benefit of all persons having claims within the terms of the statute. If it is insufficient to pay all in full, it should be divided ratably among them. A bill in equity in such a case as this, as in the case of a creditors' bill, or a suit for the administration of a trust fund, should make all persons interested in the fund parties. Smith v. Williams, 116 Mass. 510; Libby v. Norris, 142 Mass. 246, 7 N.E. 919. See, also, Richmond v. Irons, 121 U.S. 27, 44, 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulda v. Second Nat. Bank of Boston
... ... Crafts, 145 Mass. 444 , 447 ... Richmond v. Adams National Bank, 152 Mass. 359 ... Crowell v ... Cape Cod Ship Canal Co. 164 Mass. 235 , 237. Kendall v ... ...
-
Shirk v. Walker
...Bank, 152 Mass. 359, 365, 25 N.E. 731;Evans v. Wall, 159 Mass. 164, 168, 34 N.E. 183,38 Am.St.Rep. 406;Crowell v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co., 164 Mass. 235, 237, 41 N.E. 290;Gregory v. Merchants' National Bank, 171 Mass. 67, 69, 50 N.E. 520;Kendall v. Fidelity Trust Co., 230 Mass. 238, 240, 11......
-
Shirk v. Walker
... ... v. Adams National Bank, 152 Mass. 359 , 365. Evans ... v. Wall, 159 Mass. 164 , 168. Crowell v. Cape Cod ... Ship Canal Co. 164 Mass. 235 , 237. Gregory v ... Merchants' National Bank, 171 ... ...
-
Wickwire-Spencer Steel Corp. v. United Spring Mfg. Co.
...such persons should be made parties rests largely in sound judicial discretion. Smith v. Williams, 116 Mass. 510;Crowell v. Cape Cod Ship Canal Co., 164 Mass. 235, 41 N. E. 290. The case at bar is distinguishable from Gregory v. Merchants' National Bank, 171 Mass. 67, 50 N. E. 520, and simi......