Hathaway v. Foy
| Decision Date | 31 March 1867 |
| Citation | 40 Mo. 540 |
| Parties | CHARLES HATHAWAY, Respondent, v. PETER L. FOY and the PEOPLE'S PASSENGER RAILWAY COMPANY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Ladue and Samuel Simmons, for appellants.
The court erred in refusing to grant the instruction, which asked the court to declare that the plaintiff having a complete remedy at law against the People's Passenger Railway Company, is not entitled to equitable relief in their action against defendant Foy--Grandin v. Jones, 2 Paige Ch. 509; Wiswell v. Wall, 3 Paige Ch. 303. Where remedy at law is complete, courts of equity will not assume jurisdiction--1 Sto. Eq. J., § 641; 3 Sanf. 463; Kortwright v. Buffalo Bk. 20 Wend. 91. In this last cited case, it was held that an action of assumpsit lies against a monied corporation for refusing to permit a transfer of its stock upon the books of the corporation--The King v. Bank of England, Doug. 523; Parbury v. Bank of England, Doug. 529. In the case of the King v. The Bank of England, the court refused a mandamus to compel the bank to enter a transfer of stock on its books, on the ground that an action would lie for a complete satisfaction equivalent to a specific relief, and afterwards assumpsit was brought and the cause tried before Ld. Mansfield, without any exceptions to the remedy.
In support of the above position the following additional cases are cited:-- Danforth v. Schoharie Tpk. Co. 12 Johns. 230; 3 Mass. 381; 10 Mass. 402; 17 Mass. 503; 8 Pick. 98; 7 Cranch, 299; 2 Kent's Com. 289, 29; Ang. & Ames Corp. (5 ed.) §§ 376, 381; 15 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 4; Ward v. Dewey, 16 N. Y. 518; Langston v. Hallowback, 4 Barb. (S. C.) 9; 5 Johns. Ch. 252; 4 Johns. Ch. 84.
T. T. Gantt, for respondent.
I. The Circuit Court had plain jurisdiction of the controversy. It was essentially such a proceeding as might have been compelled by the People's Railway Company, which was liable to be sued by two rival claimants of one hundred shares of stock, and was threatened with suit by the person not holding the certificate. The company could with perfect propriety have filed its bill, praying that these claimants should be made to interplead, and determine their rival claims, before vexing it with an action--2 Sto. Eq. Jur. § 806, and following tit. Interpleader; 1 Spence's Eq. Jur. 659-60. It is not conceived that there can be a necessity for saying more than this.
II. If the proceeding be one which a court of equity would have compelled, it is a waste of time to detain the court by an argument to show that the plaintiff was justified in doing that which a court of equity would have ordered him to do.
III. The parties Hathaway and Foy are then before the court making proof of their respective titles. On the part of Foy, it appears that he made a subscription for the stock, which on the same or the following day he abandoned and surrendered to Hathaway, in consideration that Hathaway would pay the calls made in respect of it by the company; that Hathaway accepted these terms, paid the calls, and received from the company the certificate for the stock. Foy never paid a penny towards these calls, and never made a pretence of a claim to the stock until three years and more afterwards, when it had become manifest that the stock was worth a large premium. Comment seems quite needless.
The case presents these leading facts: The defendant Foy was an original subscriber for one hundred shares of stock in the People's Railway Company. No certificate of stock had been issued to him. He declined to pay instalments, but no measures were taken to enforce payment or forfeiture. The plaintiff desired to obtain these shares. An agent of the plaintiff states that he went to Foy on his behalf; that Foy said he did not want the shares if he had to pay instalments thereon, and would relinquish them; that he told Foy that the plaintiff would take them, and that Foy assented, and that he had an indistinct recollection that some writing to that effect was given by Foy for the plaintiff, but was not positive. There...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. and to Use of Clay County State Bank v. Waltner
... ... matter to prevent the jurisdiction of the probate court from ... being exercised, because plaintiff, as one claimant to a ... fund, may not maintain a suit in the nature of a bill of ... interpleader where action at law is adequate. Hathaway v ... Foy, 40 Mo. 540; Arn v. Arn, 81 Mo.App. 133; ... Lavelle v. Belliu, 121 Mo.App. 442, 97 S.W. 200; ... Bentrup v. Johnson, 223 Mo.App. 299, 14 S.W.2d 537 ... Hart & Joyce and Roach & Brenner for respondent ... (1) The ... Circuit Court of ... ...
-
Bentrup v. Johnson
... ... different persons claiming the same property, but no action ... of interpleader can be maintained by either of such claimants ... because each of the claimants, as against the holder of such ... property, has an adequate remedy at law. [ Hathaway v. Foy ... et al., 40 Mo. 540.] But in exceptional cases where no ... adequate remedy at law is available, relief is afforded in ... equity in an action which in fact is in the nature of an ... interpleader ... We have ... already held in effect on the first appeal of this ... ...
- In re Estate Rahn
-
Bentrup v. Johnson and Lehmann.
...either of such claimants because each of the claimants, as against the holder of such property, has an adequate remedy at law. [Hathaway v. Foy et al., 40 Mo. 540.] But in exceptional cases where no adequate remedy at law is available, relief is afforded in equity in an action which in fact......