Kirkland v. Knox
| Decision Date | 02 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 1401. |
| Parties | KIRKLAND et al. v. KNOX et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
James A. Willis, of Barnwell, S.C. (James E. Davis, of Barnwell S.C., on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.
Arthur R. Young, of Charleston, S.C. (B. A. Hagood and Hagood Rivers & Young, all of Charleston, S.C., on the brief), for defendants in error.
Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.
In February, 1915, the receivers of the Hilton-Dodge Lumber Company, claiming to own the timber on a tract of land in Barnwell county, S.C., employed one Durden to cut and remove the same. Durden hired a man by the name of Edenfield, who had the needful machinery and force of men, to do the work. In the latter part of March these agents of the receivers attempted to commence operations, but were prevented from going upon the premises by George D. Kirkland, acting for his wife, Ela F. Kirkland, the then owner of the land. The receivers thereupon brought suit for possession of the property and for expenses incurred in preparing to cut the timber. They had judgment in the court below, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and the case comes here on writ of error.
It is contended that the District Court was without jurisdiction because the requisite amount was not involved; but the contention is without merit. The receivers were appointed by the federal court in which the suit was brought, and pursuant to its order. It was brought to recover property claimed by the receivers as part of their trust estate, the possession of which was refused by defendants, and was therefore auxiliary to the main action in which they had been appointed. Under these circumstances the court had jurisdiction irrespective of the citizenship of the parties or the amount involved, as the Supreme Court expressly held in White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36, 15 Sup.Ct. 1018, 40 L.Ed. 67. The opinion in that case says:
'Any suit by or against such receiver, in the course of the winding up of such corporation, whether for the collection of its assets or for the defense of its property rights, must be regarded as ancillary to the main suit, and as cognizable in the Circuit Court, regardless either of the citizenship of the parties, or of the amount in controversy.'
The contract under which the receivers claim limited the time for cutting and removing the timber to 'the space and term of ten years from the date of this lease and sale. ' This contract, however, bore no date of month or year, the spaces for the insertion of the dates having been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carey v. McMillan
...56, 19 L.Ed. 858; Lamb v. Ewing, 54 F. 269, 4 C.C.A. 320. Or it may be legal, as in aid of or affecting an equitable suit. Kirkland v. Knox, 230 F. 806, 145 C.C.A. 116; Hume v. City of N.Y., 255 F. 488, 166 C.C.A. The form of the ancillary proceeding is to be adapted to the facts; 'but it m......
-
Alexander v. Hillman
...159 U. S. 36, 15 S. Ct. 1018, 40 L. Ed. 67; Pope v. L., N. & A. C. R. Co., 173 U. S. 573, 19 S. Ct. 500, 43 L. Ed. 814; Kirkland v. Knox (C. C. A.) 230 F. 806; Carey v. McMillan (C. C. A. 8th) 289 F. 380; Hart v. Wiltsee (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 903; Hume v. City of New York (C. C. A.) 255 F. 4......
-
Barfield v. Zenith Tire & Rubber Co.
...39 S. Ct. 268, 63 L. Ed. 577; Metropolitan Trust Co. of New York v. Columbus S. & H. R. Co. (C. C.) 93 F. 689; Kirkland et al. v. Knox et al., 230 F. 806, 145 C. C. A. 116; and Hume v. City of New York, 255 F. 488, 166 C. C. A. In General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. ......
- Smith v. Currie