Gregory v. Pike

• Decision Date: 12 February 1900
• Citation: 46 A. 793,94 Me. 27
• Parties: GREGORY v. PIKE.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

46 A. 793

94 Me. 27

GREGORY

v. PIKE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Feb. 12, 1900.

Report from supreme judicial court, Washington county.

Bill by Charles A. Gregory against Mary H. Pike.

Bill in equity, heard on bill, answer, anu proofs, alleging that the defendant was not legally entitled to a fund held by the Boston Trust Company, and that she had wrongfully obtained said money in violation of an express trust agreement under which it was thus held; also that said fund is charged with a resulting trust in favor of the complainant, who is legally entitled to it under and by virtue of an award of an arbitrator made and published December 20, 1886, and which award has never been annulled nor set aside by any court of law, nor waived or reopened by any act of the complainant. Dismissed.

Argued before HASKELL, WISWELL STROUT, SAVAGE, and FOGLER, JJ.

F. A. Brooks and Robert T. Whitehouse, for plaintiff. T. H. Talbot, J. W. Symonds, D. W. Snow, and C. S. Cook, for defendant.

STROUT, J.Plaintiff alleges that on April 25, 1883, he was the equitable owner of two nonnegotiable notes of that date, signed by William C. N. Swift, and payable to Charles F. Jones, one for $15,000, payable in two years from date, with interest, and the other for $20,334.60, payable in three years from date, with interest. Jones, the payee, without authority from Gregory, as he claims, on or about July 31, 1883, delivered the notes to George W. Butterfield, who on that day delivered them to Frederick A. Pike as collateral security for a payment of $25,000 due from him to Pike, under an agreement of that date by which Pike was to sell and convey certain mining property to Butterfield. The notes bore upon their back the indorsement of Jones, the payee. When Gregory learned of this transaction, he demanded the notes of Pike, who refused to deliver them, and Gregory, in December, 1889, brought a bill in equity in the supreme court of Massachusetts against Pike and Swift to recover possession of them.

This suit was removed to the United States circuit court, and became No. 2,170 on the equity docket of that court.

Pending this suit, on January 8, 1886, Pike and Gregory made an agreement, by which Pike was not to deal with either J. C. Kemp, Butterfield, or Jones, each of whom claimed an interest therein, in reference to the notes, except in pursuance of Gregory's rights as they might be determined in this suit, and that the larger note should be lodged with Amos P. Tapley, to abide the determination of the suit; and. If that note was not paid at maturity, suit should be brought under the joint direction of the attorneys of Pike and Gregory. January 22, 1886, Kemp and Butterfield were made parties defendant to the bill. November 30, 1886, the attorneys of Pike and Gregory agreed in writing to submit the controversy to Judge Hoar as referee, but Kemp and Butterfield were not parties to the submission, and it was not made a rule of court, nor any entry in regard to it made upon the docket By the agreement Hoar was to have possession of the notes, and deliver them to the party he found entitled to them. The counsel proceeded to a hearing before Judge Hoar in December, 1886, but before the hearing had concluded Pike died. Notwithstanding this, counsel continued the hearing, but without authority from the defendant, Mary H. Pike, wife of Frederick A. Pike, and named as his executrix in his will, but who was not qualified as such till March, 1887. Neither Kemp nor Butterfield was represented. December 18th, Judge Hoar verbally announced his decision. On the 17th, Mr. Brooks, counsel for Gregory, having drawn a form of award, asked Judge Hoar to sign it, which he did, and offered to make a delivery of it as his award, which Brooks declined till Talbot, Pike's counsel, could see it, as he might desire some change. On the 24th, Brooks and Talbot called on Judge Hoar by previous request from him.

That morning Mrs. Pike had delivered to Hoar a written revocation of his authority as referee. At that interview Judge Hoar asked to be relieved from the further custody of the Swift notes, and hesitated about receiving payment for bis services, remarking that he did not know as the parties had derived any benefit from them. He said the award was not to be binding as an award until Pike's counsel should be heard in relation to it. He then delivered to Brooks and Talbot the award and the Swift notes, and they immediately, in pursuance of previous arrangement, delivered them to John G. Stetson, upon his receipt therefor, with the stipulation that they should be held "subject to the joint order and direction of the said Talbot and Brooks, and dealt with as they may jointly direct." Both of the Swift notes were put in suit at their maturity, and their amounts were paid into the circuit court, and there held by order of that court to await determination of the rights of the several claimants of the fund.

By order of that court the fund was transferred to the credit of equity suit 2,170, "to remain subject to the order of court in that case." By order of court, with the consent of all parties, the fund was deposited upon interest in the Boston Safe-Deposit & Trust Company. January 10, 1887, Gregory brought a supplemental bill against Stetson, Swift, and Talbot, docketed in the original suit 2,170 for the purpose of reaching the proceeds of the $20,000 note of Swift, by virtue of an alleged award of Judge Hoar. August 6, 1887, Gregory brought another bill in equity in the circuit court against the safe-deposit and trust company and this defendant, Mary H. Pike, docketed as No. 2,424, claiming under the award of Judge Hoar. To this suit Mrs. Pike appeared and answered as executrix of P. A. Pike. A cross bill was brought by Kemp, in which he claimed an interest in the Swift notes. Butterfield also brought a cross bill. Both of these were in 2,170. April 29, 1887, on motion of Gregory, the court ordered that this defendant, Mary H. Pike, be summoned to appear and answer to the supplemental bill in No. 2,170. In response to this, Mrs. Pike, as executrix, appeared and answered to the supplemental bill and the original bill. The cause then proceeded, testimony was taken, hearing had, and decree rendered March 8, 1894. By this decree Kemp took one-half of the amount of the $15,000 note, and Mrs. Pike $25,000, with interest from January 1, 1884, if the fund in court was sufficient therefor; if not, the balance of the fund; and the cross bill of Butterfleld was dismissed. This decree was in No. 2,170.

Gregory's bill, 2,424, having been dismissed by the circuit court, that and Kemp's cross bill in 2,170 were carried to the circuit court of appeals, and thence to the supreme court of the United States, where the dismissal of Gregory's bill, 2,424, was sustained, and it was held that all persons interested in the fund were parties to the original bill in 2,170, and that their rights could "be effectively determined only in equity cause No. 2,170." Gregory v. Trust Co., 144 U. S. 668, 12 Sup. Ct. 784, 36 L. Ed. 586.

In pursuance of mandates from that court and the circuit court of appeals, a final decree in No. 2,170 was entered in the circuit court on June 20, 1896, by which from the fund then in court, amounting to $50,131.85, after payment of certain...