Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1909 |
| Docket Number | 10. |
| Citation | 170 F. 587 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Parties | HUXLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO. |
Joshua R. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph H. Taulane and White, White & Taulane, for defendant in error.
Before DALLAS, GRAY, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges.
In the court below, Norman S. Huxley, herein styled plaintiff brought an action against the Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company, herein styled defendant, to recover six automobiles. Thereupon the defendant presented to that court a petition wherein it alleged it had no title to said machines; that they had been stored with it by the Dragon Automobile Company, to which it issued six certificates; that the plaintiff claimed ownership of the automobiles by virtue of ownership of these certificates that the Dragon Automobile Company, since the storage, had gone into bankruptcy, and its receiver had notified defendant not to deliver the automobiles to the plaintiff.
The petitioner offered to bring the automobiles into court or dispose of them as it might direct. It also prayed an order for plaintiff and the receiver to interplead. Thereupon the court, on June 22, 1908, granted a rule on plaintiff and the receiver 'to show cause why they should not interplead as to the subject-matter of this action, and why the Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company should not have leave to dispose of said six automobiles as the court shall direct. ' To this rule separate answers were filed by plaintiff and the receiver. The only action shown thereon by the court is the memorandum in the docket entries:
The docket entries also show that no orders were subsequently made. Thereupon the plaintiff, without joining the receiver or requesting him to join therein, sued out this writ, and as error assigned the court's action, first, 'in making absolute the said rule for an interpleader,' and second, 'in not dismissing the said rule for an interpleader.'
Passing by the question whether, when an order affecting several persons is made, a writ can be sued out by one alone in the absence of summons, severance, or a sufficient showing for nonjoinder of the other (Port v. Schloss Bros. & Co., 149 F. 731, 79 C.C.A. 437), we think the record in this case fails to disclose a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Republic of China v. American Express Co.
...is Credit Bureau of San Diego v. Petrasich, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 65, where the court cited and relied upon Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co., 170 F. 587, but neglected to note that there the stakeholder had not been discharged and that in a later stage of the Huxley Case, 3 C......
-
Credit Bureau of San Diego v. Petrasich
...Co. v. Christian, 9 Cir., 52 F.2d 847 "It contemplated further proceedings in the lower court". See also: Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co., 3 Cir., 170 F. 587; Wagstaff v. Wagstaff, 67 Kan. 832, 72 P. 780; New Zealand Ins. Co. v. Smith, 41 Or. 466, 69 P. 268; Harrison v......
-
Huxley v. Hayes
...... the time stated, in the warehouse of the Pennsylvania. Warehousing Company, in the city of Philadelphia, on storage,. and the ... against the Warehousing Company-- see Huxley v. Pa. Warehousing & Safe Dep. Co., 170 F. 587, 95 C.C.A. 667;. also s.c., 184 F. 705, 106 C.C.A. ......