Huxley v. Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Co.

• Citation: 184 F. 705
• Decision Date: 19 January 1911
• Docket Number: 31.
• Parties: HUXLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

184 F. 705

HUXLEY v. PENNSYLVANIA WAREHOUSING & SAFE DEPOSIT CO.

No. 31.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

January 19, 1911

Joshua R. Morgan, Rudolph M. Schick, and Edwin O. Michener, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph H. Taulane and White, White, & Taulane, for defendant in error.

Before GRAY, BUFFINGTON, and LANNING, Circuit Judges.

BUFFINGTON Circuit Judge.

In the court below Norman S. Huxley, a citizen of Delaware, brought an action on May 26, 1908, against the Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania, to recover $6,600, being the value of six automobiles. These automobiles he claimed, in his statement filed June 8th, to own by virtue of six separate storage certificates therefor, issued by the Warehousing Company, and which had been transferred to, and were now owned by, him. He further alleged that on May 22, 1908, he had tendered storage charges thereon, and demanded, and been refused delivery of the automobiles by the Warehousing Company. He then averred a conversion by the defendant on May 22d. On June 22, 1908, the defendant, having meanwhile been served, but before it pleaded, presented a petition to the court below setting forth that it disclaimed any and all title to the automobiles; that it was engaged in the public warehousing business; that it had received these machines on storage from the Dragon Automobile Company, and had issued to it the certificates in question that that company had been adjudged bankrupt in the District Court, and its receiver, James A. Hayes, Jr., claimed the automobiles were its property, that the warehouse receipts had been unlawfully transferred to the plaintiff, that he demanded delivery of the same to him, and that, if the Warehousing Company surrendered them to Huxley, the receiver would sue it for damages; that, while petitioner was endeavoring to adjust the conflicting rights of these claimants, Huxley brought suit. The petition concluded:

'That your petitioner has no interest in the said six automobiles, and is thus liable to be put to the expense of defending two actions, and is subject to the risk of being compelled to pay twice damages in the amount of the value of the said machines. Whereupon your petitioner needs relief. Your petitioner offers to bring the said six automobiles into court, or dispose of them as the court shall order, and humbly prays: (a) That this honorable court will order the plaintiff and the Dragon Automobile Company and James A. Hayes, Jr., receiver in bankruptcy thereof, to interplead.'

Subsequently the court, after notice, ordered an interpleader and directed a feigned issue be framed between Hayes, receiver, as plaintiff, and Huxley, as defendant--

'to determine the right of property of the said six automobiles on the 22d day of May, 1908; and it is further ordered that the Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company have leave to bring the said six automobiles into court, by holding the same subject to the further orders of the court and that no further proceedings be had against the said Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company, and the said Pennsylvania Warehousing & Safe Deposit Company is discharged of all liability to the said Norman...