Eaton v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation, 6027.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1936
• Docket Number: No. 6027.,6027.
• Citation: 84 F.2d 364
• Parties: EATON et al. v. PITTSBURGH TERMINAL COAL CORPORATION et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

84 F.2d 364 (1936)

EATON et al. v. PITTSBURGH TERMINAL COAL CORPORATION et al.

No. 6027.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

May 28, 1936.

Alter, Wright & Barron, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and James C. Weir and Bulkley, Hauxhurst, Inglis & Sharp, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellants.

Sidney J. Watts and Baker & Watts, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corporation.

Harvey A. Miller and Miller & Nesbitt, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee Bennett.

Before BUFFINGTON, DAVIS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the District Court dismissing the appellants' bill in equity.

It appears that S. A. Williams became indebted to Otis & Co. on two promissory notes. Williams had entered into a contract with Hoffacker, who was designated as agent therein, for the sale of coal lands. Hoffacker later refused to accept the delivery of the deeds. Otis & Co., on October 11, 1926, issued a writ of foreign attachment in the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, Pa., against Williams, summoning Hoffacker as garnishee. Judgment was rendered against Williams for $20,052.50, but since he was not a citizen of Pennsylvania and did not appear, the judgment was only one in rem and had effect only against whatever property the garnishee, Hoffacker, may have had of Williams. Williams later sued Hoffacker for breach of contract and recovered a verdict and judgment for $25,000. Later, Williams entered suit against the Pittsburgh Coal Company in the District Court as the undisclosed principal of Hoffacker. This suit was dismissed, but this court in Williams v. Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp., 62 F.(2d) 924, reversed the District Court and granted a new trial. On June 20, 1933, Williams recovered a judgment for $142,561.31. This was upheld by this court on appeal in Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp. v. Williams, 70 F.(2d) 65, and again in a petition for rehearing in Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Corp. v. Bennett (C.C.A.) 73 F. (2d) 387. Mrs. Bennett was the administratrix of Williams, who had died. She is one of the appellees in this suit. The plaintiffs in this bill in equity are assignees of Otis & Co. and ask that a trust be declared in their favor of the unsatisfied balance of the judgment owed by the Pittsburgh Terminal Coal Company to Bennett, and that the funds already paid to Mrs. Bennett be impressed with a trust in their favor.

The first question is whether Otis & Co. obtained anything at all in the foreign attachment proceedings. This depends on whether a breach of contract claim is subject to garnishment before the breach has been found absolutely to exist and before the claim is liquidated. There is no case directly in point in Pennsylvania. The Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Field, 45 Pa. 129, case is the nearest. There an unliquidated claim against a fire insurance company for damages resulting from fire was held to be the subject of garnishment. The court, however, goes on to say that there was no dispute as to the amount of the loss which was decided upon without arbitration; that the losses were very easy to compute because the standards...