Houston Rice Milling Co. v. Hankamer

• Decision Date: 10 October 1906
• Citation: 97 S.W. 119
• Parties: HOUSTON RICE MILLING CO. v. HANKAMER et al.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

97 S.W. 119

HOUSTON RICE MILLING CO. v. HANKAMER et al.^*

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

October 10, 1906.

Rehearing Denied October 31, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Chambers County; L. B. Hightower, Judge.

Suit by the Houston Rice Milling Company against J. W. Hankamer and others. From a decree in favor of defendants, complainant appeals. Reversed in part.

Marshall & Marshall and J. R. Davis, for appellant. Stevens & Pickett, for appellees.

FLY, J.

Appellant applied for a writ of injunction to restrain the collection of judgments obtained by 25 persons against it in a justice's court of Chambers county, each one based on a separate claim. It was alleged that Lee Barrow, Clarence Barrow, John M. Barrow, and Eliza J. Barrow were sued with appellant, they having employed each of the plaintiffs to do certain work in and about certain rice; appellant being sought to be held liable on the ground that it had converted the rice with full knowledge that each of them had a laborer's lien on it. Appellant denied the existence of the lien, and proceeded as follows: "Now plaintiff says that, by reason of the facts set forth herein in paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, showing the nature of the claims asserted by the defendants who have filed said suits in said justice court, and because the claims in each of said cases are the same and growing out of the same alleged acts of this plaintiff, and defendants John M., Lee, and Clarence Barrow, and because the evidence, facts, and testimony to establish or to attempt to establish any one case, except as to the amount of the sum due each, is the same in each and all of the said cases, the rights and claims of the said defendants who have sued plaintiff depend on the same question of law and fact. And further plaintiff says that, because each of said defendants is attempting to establish a laborer's lien on the same crop of rice, and is attempting to subject the said crop of rice to the alleged laborer's lien, that all of said defendants have a common or community of right and alleged interest in the subject-matter of this litigation in so far as the laborer's lien contention is asserted. Plaintiff further says that, because of the facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, herein, this plaintiff has the same defense to each of said suits in said justice court and a common defense to all of them. Plaintiff further shows the court that said cases pending in the said justice court cannot be consolidated in said court, for the reason that the aggregate amount of said suits is without the jurisdiction of said court, to wit, the sum of $654.75. Plaintiff further says that the said justice court, because all of the suits therein pending are separate and distinct, and because the various plaintiffs therein are not parties to each suit and all suits, cannot adjust and arrange priorities of liens, if liens are established, among the various plaintiffs therein, defendants herein; that, because said priorities cannot be adjusted by said justice court, this plaintiff, if found liable on the lien feature of said suits, would be unable to protect itself, even when the subject-matter of the lien is exhausted, because by virtue of the justice judgment against this plaintiff each of said defendants would have a lien of equal rank with all others, and on which plaintiff would be liable on all. Plaintiff further says that, while some of said cases, in so far as amounts sued for are concerned, can be appealed to the county court, said appeals would be ineffective to adjust priorities among said parties and to protect plaintiff thereunder. Wherefore plaintiff says he has no adequate remedy at law to protect its rights in said justice court. Plaintiff further shows the court that while the various plaintiffs in said justice court (defendants herein) have cases depending upon the same questions of law and fact, and have a community of interest and right in the subject-matter thereof, to wit, the alleged lien on said crop of rice, and while plaintiff has a common defense to all of said suits, yet because each of said defendants has filed a separate suit this plaintiff will have to make 26 different defenses, and if cast in the cases will incur the costs of 26 cases. Wherefore this plaintiff says that it is entitled to have the further prosecution of said case enjoined in said justice cour...