Hill v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 November 1900
• Citation: 104 F. 754
• Parties: HILL et al. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division

104 F. 754

HILL et al. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Northern Division.

November 5, 1900

In its answer to the complaint, the defendant denies the negligence charged, and pleads as an affirmative defense a complete settlement of the demand for damages herein, and payment of the sums of money which the widow of the deceased agreed to accept as compensation to her in her own right, and to her for the benefit of her minor daughter, who appears as her co-plaintiff; that said settlement was upon the petition of the widow as guardian of her child, approved and ratified by the superior court for Pierce county; and that for the consideration of said payments the widow, for herself and as guardian for her co-plaintiff, executed and delivered to the defendant separate written releases of the claims now in suit. The amended reply to said answer admits the facts alleged in the answer relating to the settlement and the execution of releases, but in avoidance thereof alleges that the widow was induced to give her assent to the settlement, and to accept the money paid by the defendant, and to execute the releases by certain representations made to her of facts tending to exculpate the defendant, which were and are false and fraudulent, and that she can prove the falsity of said representations by competent witnesses upon the trial of this action; that she would not have given her assent to the settlement if such representations had not been made, and that she did not know at the time of the settlement that said representations were false, or that any evidence could be obtained to prove the contrary state of facts. Argued and submitted upon a demurrer to the amended reply. Demurrer sustained.

Lewis Hardin & Albertson, for plaintiffs.

Struve Allen, Hughes & McMicken, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge (after stating the facts).

The demurrer to the amended reply raises the question whether under the laws of the United States governing the practice of courts in an action at law, a full settlement of the controversy and a written release of the plaintiffs' demand against the defendant can be impeached and annulled for false and fraudulent representations by which the plaintiff in the action was induced to accept the terms of settlement and execute the release. In their argument counsel for the plaintiffs urge that, under the Code of Civil Procedure of this state, a release of a right of action may be avoided in an action at law in the manner proposed in this case, and this is true; and they also urge that under section 914, Rev. St. U.S., the procedure in common-law actions in this court must conform to the practice of the state courts, and hence they have the same right to litigate the issue of fraud, and impeach the settlement and release, which they would have if the case had remained in the state court in which it was commenced. If the proposition, as stated, is true, it must logically lead to the result that in all the code states where legal and equitable relief, or either, may be demanded and obtained in a single action, section 914, Rev. St. U.S., has the effect to abolish the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity in the federal courts; but the contrary intention is clearly expressed by the words of the section referred to. The jurisdiction and practice of the federal courts as courts of equity is preserved, and the forms and modes of procedure in common-law actions is made to conform to the practice of state courts, only so far as may be consistently with the organization and limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212, 4 L.Ed. 372; Fenn v. Holme, 21 How. 481, 16 L.Ed. 198; Hooper v. Scheimer, 23 How. 235, 16 L.Ed. 452; Sheirburn v. De Cordova, 24 How. 423, 16 L.Ed. 741; Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146, 11 Sup.Ct. 276, 34 L.Ed. 873; Scott v. Neely, 140 U.S. 106, 11 Sup.Ct. 712, 35 L.Ed. 358; Furnace Co. v. Witherow, 149 U.S. 574, 13 Sup.Ct. 936, 37 L.Ed. 853.

This defense to the action is an executed contract, and proceedings to set it aside should be in equity, because the court, in relieving the plaintiffs from the obligation of their contract after it has been...