Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Eno

• Decision Date: 26 June 1928
• Citation: 117 So. 710,99 Fla. 874
• Parties: FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. ENO et al.[*]
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

117 So. 710

99 Fla. 874

FLORIDA EAST COAST RY. CO. v. ENO et al.^[*]

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

June 26, 1928

Bill for interpleader by the Florida East Coast Railway Company against James L. Eno, alias J. L. Eno, and others. From an order overruling exceptions to amended answer, the complainant appeals.

Remanded with directions.

Strum and Brown, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Johns County; De Witt T. Gray, judge.

COUNSEL

Robert H. Anderson and John B. L'Engle, both of Jacksonville for appellant.

David R. Dunham and Lawrence C. Case, both of St. Augustine, for appellees.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

In this case the Florida East Coast Railway Company filed a bill for interpleader against a number of claimants who had each filed notice of liens under the provisions of sections 3497 and 3518, Rev. Gen. Statutes of Florida, the defendant Eno, the contractor, and the St. Augustine National Bank, the assignee, of the contract.

The bill of complaint shows:

That the complainant was indebted to the contractor at the time the liens claimed by laborers and materialmen became effective under the terms of four separate and distinct contracts in the sum of $7,,126.73. That the railroad company had contracted with Eno on July 20, 1925, to furnish certain material and perform certain work at or near Deerfield. That the complainant had contracted with Eno on July 22, 1925, to furnish certain material and do certain work at or near Camden, and had entered into a contract with Eno on August 4, 1925, to furnish certain material and do certain work at Palm Beach, and had entered into a contract on August 17, 1925, to furnish certain material and do certain work at or near Salerno, and had entered into a contract with Eno on August 18, 1925, to furnish certain material and perform certain work at or near Stuart.

That the contract known as the 'Stuart' contract was never in any wise performed, and that the plaintiff never became indebted to Eno for the performance of any work under the 'Stuart' contract. That various materialmen and laborers to whom Eno became indebted for material furnished and labor performed under the 'Palm Beach' contract filed claims of liens in the aggregate sum of $4,113.88. That at the time the complainant was indebted to Eno under the contract in the sum of $6,088.08. That various materialmen and laborers to whom Eno had become indebted for materials furnished and labor performed under the 'Camden' contract filed claims of liens in the aggregate sum of $546.85, and that complainant was at that time indebted to Eno under that contract in the sum of $148.32. That various materialmen and laborers filed claims of liens for work done and material furnished under the 'Stuart' contract in the sum of $75.00, and that at that time the complainant was not indebted to Eno under that contract in any sum whatever. That the St. Augustine National Bank had taken an assignment from Eno addressed to Florida East Coast Railway Company at St. Augustine, Fla., on August 8, 1925, of any and all sums which might be due, or become due, to Eno under the several contracts, which assignment was in the following language, to wit:

'August 8, 1925.

'Florida East Coast Railway Company, St. Augustine, Florida--Gentlemen: For the purpose of protecting them for funds advanced or to be advanced, I hereby assign, transfer and set over unto the St. Augustine National Bank any and all sums which may be due or may become due me as payment for services performed under any contract or contracts made with the Florida East Coast Railway Company for clearing, grading or similar work.

'I further suthorize the issuance of vouchers payable to the St. Augustine National Bank for any moneys due me, hereby authorizing you to accept the indorsement of the St. Augustine National Bank upon such vouchers.

'Very truly yours,

'[Signed] James L. Eno'

And that the bank under the provisions of this assignment claims a balance of unpaid advances made to Eno in the sum of $10,197.74, thus making it appear that there are, including the claim of St. Augustine National Bank, demands upon the funds due to Eno under his several contracts aggregating $14,933.47, while there was due Eno only $7,126.73, leaving a deficit of $7,806.74. To the bill of complaint St. Augustine National Bank filed a demurrer. The demurrer was overruled. Answers were filed by several defendants, and cross-bill was filed by St. Augustine National Bank. Exceptions were filed to an amended answer of the St. Augustine National Bank. The exceptions were set down for hearing, and, on hearing, were overruled. There was a demurrer to the crossbill of St. Augustine National Bank. The demurrer was sustained, and the cross-bill was dismissed. The appeal is from the order of the court made and entered on the 25th day of March, 1927, overruling the exceptions of the complainant to the amended answer of the defendant.

Before considering the merits of the questions presented by the order overruling the exceptions to the answer, we must first determine whether or not the complainant has any standing in the court for the purpose for which it is here, that is, to present a cause of interepleader.

When the bill is measured by the rules enunciated by this court in Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co. et al. v. South Florida Farms Co., 91 Fla. 593, 109 So. 212, 48 A. L. R. 957, and in Bank of Bay Biscayne v. Fuller (Fla.), filed January 9, 1928, and reported in 115 So. 530, we arrive at the conclusion that the allegations of the bill of complaint will not support the bill for interpleader, and that the demurrer of St. Augustine National Bank should have been sustained on the second, third, fifth, and sixth grounds, which are respectively, as follows:

'(2) That there is no equity in the bill.

'(3) No right on the party of the complainant to interplead is shown.'

'(5) Said bill fails to show any privity of interests between the parties defendant.

'(6) It does not appear affirmatively that the complainant is an innocent stakeholder.'

It will be observed that the lienholding claimants whose claims originated under the performance of the 'Palm Beach' contract were not in privity with the owner, the railway company, nor were they in privity with the St. Augustine National Bank, nor were they in privity with any of the lienholding claimants whose claims originated under the performance of either the 'Salerno' contract or the 'Stuart' contract. A like lack of privity between the lienholding claimants whose claims originated under the performance of the 'Salerno' contract and other parties to the suit exists, and so it does in the case of the lienholding claimants whose claims originated under the performance of the 'Stuart' contract. The St. Augustine National Bank is not in privity with any of the other defendants to the suit except Eno.

It will also be observed that the rights of the several defendants are asserted under adverse titles and of different natures. Each lienholder claimant is alleged in the bill to assert his right under the acquisition of a lien provided by statute, while it is alleged that the St. Augustine National Bank asserts its claim under an assignment of the proceeds of the contract by the contractor who had agreed to perform the several contracts. It is evident that the question of priority and superior dignity of the several claims is involved. The rights of the materialmen and laborers who have become lienholding claimants is fixed by statute. The rights of the bank and the liability of the railway company to the bank may be found to be fixed by contract between the parties.

In Jax Ice & Cold Storage Co. et al. v. South Fla. Farms Co., supra, it is said:

'The remedy by 'interpleader' is an equitable one, and is based upon the theory that conflicting claimants should litigate their claims among themselves without involving the stakeholder in their dispute. Its office is to protect one against the embarrassment of conflicting claims and double vexation in respect to one liability.'

And further:

'A stakeholder's right to interpleader is subject to the highly technical requirement that the opposing claimants' titles must be 'in privity with each other'; one derived from the other or both from a common source. Where the rights of the claimants are asserted under adverse titles and are of different natures, the bill cannot be maintained.'

And further:

'The person seeking an interpleader cannot cast upon the claimants the burden of settling the question of whether the complainant has obligated himself to one of the parties. He is supposed to know whether he has or not. The complainant should be indifferent between the claimants, without interest in the controversy, and should not by any act on his part have caused the embarrassment of conflicting claims and the peril of double vexation.'

The allegations of the bill fail to show that the railway company was a stakeholder between the parties defendant in the suit, and in Bank of Bay Biscayne v. Fuller, supra, this court held:

'The bill of complaint shows that the complainant was not a stakeholder as between John M. Murrell and Commercial Bank & Trust Company, or as between Edward M. Fuller and Commercial Bank & Trust Company, or as between Commercial Bank & Trust Company and any of the other parties defendant in this suit. The bill of complaint fails to show any privity between Commercial Bank & Trust Company and John M. Murrell or between Commercial Bank & Trust Company and G. M. Horgan, S. L. Gaines, or W. F. McGee with reference to the claim involved,'

--and therefore held the bill in that case to be had on demurrer.

The Supreme Court of Oregon, in Maxwell v. Frazier et al., ...