Jones v. MacKenzie

• Decision Date: 06 April 1903
• Docket Number: 1,791.
• Citation: 122 F. 390
• Parties: JONES et al v. MacKENZIE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

122 F. 390

JONES et al v. MacKENZIE et al.

No. 1,791.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 6, 1903

Halvor Steenerson (Charles Loring, on the brief), for appellants.

Charles T. Thompson (Arthur M. Keith, Robert G. Evans, and Edwin K Fairchild, on the brief), for appellees.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

R. J MacKenzie, William MacKenzie, and Donald D. Mann, doing business as partners under the firm name of MacKenzie, Mann &amp Co., the appellees, filed a bill against Thomas L. Jones and Thomas Lawson, doing business as partners under the firm name of Jones & Lawson, and against Jesse Danley and George Bader the appellants, setting forth the following grounds for equitable relief, namely: That prior to September 1, 1899, the firm of MacKenzie, Mann & Co. were in possession of about 18,000 railroad ties, which the firm needed to complete a section, about 40 miles in length, of the Minnesota & Manitoba Railroad, in the county of Roseau, in the northern part of the state of Minnesota, which said firm was engaged in building; that these ties had been purchased from one Robert Rogers and had been paid for prior to September 1, 1899, when delivered to the complainants by said Rogers; that said ties were either wholly or in part cut by one G. C. Oaks under a contract with Rogers, and had been paid for by said Rogers, and had been delivered to him at certain points on the Rainy Lake, from whence they were towed and delivered by said Rogers to the complainants, as aforesaid, prior to September 1, 1899, who had caused them, when delivered, to be piled upon the right of way of the railroad which the complainants were engaged in building. The bill further averred that Oaks, who had cut the ties and delivered them to Rogers, on September 18, 1899, executed and delivered to Sjoberg Bros., a partnership doing business in Roseau county, Minn., a chattel mortgage, whereby he undertook to convey the aforesaid ties to Sjoberg Bros. as security for an indebtedness due from him to said firm; that Sjoberg Bros. caused said chattel mortgage to be foreclosed, and at the sale thereunder purchased said ties; that immediately thereafter Sjoberg Bros. pretended to sell and convey the ties to the defendants Jones & Lawson for a consideration of $1,050; that Jones & Lawson never took possession of the ties; that on or about September 3, 1900, when the complainants proceeded to move the ties from the place where they had been piled, and to place them in the railroad track, Jones & Lawson laid claim to the ties, procured the arrest of one or more of the complainants' employes, and, although such employe was discharged on a hearing had before a justice of the peace in Roseau county, nevertheless threatened to continue such arrests of complainants' employes if they attempted to place the ties in the track, and by so doing terrorized their employes to such an extent that they would not touch or remove the ties; and that by virtue of such wrongful conduct on the part of Jones & Lawson and the other defendants, Jesse Danley and George Bader, the work of constructing said railroad had been practically suspended. The relief prayed for in the bill was that the court would adjudge the claim of Jones & Lawson to the ties in question null and void as against the title of the complainants thereto, and that the defendants might be restrained and enjoined from threatening the employes of MacKenzie, Mann & Co. with arrest if they caused the ties to be removed and laid in the railroad track. Shortly after the filing of the bill the lower court granted an interlocutory injunction against the defendants, such as was sought; and after a final hearing it entered an order requiring the defendants to perpetually desist and refrain from threatening the servants and employes of the complainants with arrest, and from causing the arrest of any of them, for taking or using the ties which were described in the bill of complaint, and enjoining the defendants from preventing the servants and employes of the complainants from taking and using the ties for the purpose of constructing the railroad in question. The appeal was taken to obtain a reversal of the last-mentioned order or decree.

The principal question which arises upon the record, as we view it, is whether the case is one which entitled the complainants to equitable relief. If the complainants had been in actual possession of the ties when the action was instituted, as the bill averred, it may be conceded, though not decided, that the facts alleged might be held sufficient to warrant the interposition of a court of equity, since it was alleged that great injury would result to the complainants if the section of the railroad through Roseau county was not completed prior to the winter of 1899-1900 that no other ties were readily available wherewith to construct that part of the road before the work would be arrested by the approach of winter; and that the acts of the defendants in arresting and threatening the arrest of the complainants' servants and agents had in fact intimidated them to such an extent that they would not handle the ties, or attempt to remove them or place them in the track. These allegations, together with the allegation that the ties had been delivered to the complainants, and that they had paid for the same in full, of which latter fact there was considerable proof, might possibly be regarded as sufficient to justify a court of equity in affording relief on the ground that the acts of the defendants were wrongful, and liable to occasion irreparable injury, as well as breaches of the peace, if...