Kyle v. Mary Lee Coal & Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1896
• Parties: KYLE v. MARY LEE COAL & RAILWAY CO. ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 851

112 Ala. 606

KYLE v. MARY LEE COAL & RAILWAY CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 10, 1896

Appeal from city court of Gadsden; John H. Disque, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by R. B. Kyle against the Mary Lee Coal &amp Railway Company and others. Bill dismissed, and complainant appeals. Affirmed.

The bill in this case was filed on October 28, 1895, by the appellant, Robert B. Kyle, against the appellees. It was averred in the bill that on the 4th day of August, 1893, the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company caused and procured an attachment issued out of the city court of Gadsden at the suit of the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company against the Etowah Furnace Company, to be levied on a certain lot of pig iron; that on the 17th day of August, 1893, the Alabama Great Southern Railway Company made affidavit and gave bond to try the rights of property to a portion of said pig iron; and that at the request of the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company orator became a surety on the claim bond furnished by the said railroad company in said claim suit and the pig iron claimed by said company was left with orator for safe-keeping, and to be delivered to whomsoever the court might adjudge delivery should be made. It was further averred that on the 16th day of January, 1894, E. L. Knox and Walter Knox, partners under firm name of E. L. Knox & Co., commenced an action of detinue in the city court of Gadsden, to recover 202 tons of said pig iron; that E. L. Knox & Co. claim to own said pig iron, and are pressing said action of detinue against orator; that the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company also claims said pig iron under an alleged mortgage given by the Etowah Furnace Company, who produced said iron that the remainder of said pig iron is claimed by the Chattanooga National Bank, of Chattanooga, Tenn., which said bank threatens to institute proceedings against orator to recover the said pig iron; that the entire lot of pig iron described is claimed by the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company, which said railroad company is prosecuting its claim suit to enforce its claim to the same; that the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company also claim that the said pig iron, at the time of the levy of the attachment, was the property of the Etowah Furnace Company, and subject to its attachment; that subsequent to the levy of the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company's attachment, the Dora Coal Mining Company, the Queen City Electric Light Company, and Fitzgerald & Smith (partnership composed of P. S. Fitzgerald and ___ Smith) each caused an attachment to be levied on said pig iron, subject to the levy made by the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company. It was further averred that complainant has and claims no interest whatever in said pig iron, and is simply desirous of relieving himself from all responsibility in regard thereto that he is ready and willing to deliver the iron to whoever is lawfully entitled thereto and hereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of this honorable court and offers to abide and perform its decrees and orders; but that he is in danger of loss growing out of the conflicting claims set up to said pig iron and the further prosecution of the suits in a court of common law until the conflicting claims of all parties at interest can be heard and determined. The different parties and corporations mentioned in the bill as claiming the pig iron in question were made parties defendant; and the prayer of the bill was that said respondents should be enjoined from prosecuting their suits and claims until further order by the court in which the bill was filed; and that said respondents be required to propound their claims to the said pig iron and to interplead with each other in reference to said pig iron and that the court would determine and adjust the conflicting claims and determine the rights of the respective respondents to said iron. The respondents moved to dismiss the bill for the want of equity. Upon the submission of the cause upon this motion, the city court judge, sitting as chancellor, granted said motion, holding that there was equity in the bill.

Goodhue & Sibert, for appellant.

Denson & Burnett and Dortch & Martin, for appellees.

HARALSON J.

1. One of the essential elements of the equitable remedy of interpleader, as laid down is, that all the adverse titles or claims to the thing or debt, in reference to which the bill is filed, must be dependent, or be derived from a common source. "Where there is no privity between the claimants, where their titles are independent, not derived from a common source, but each asserted as wholly paramount to the other, the stakeholder is obliged, in the language of the authorities, to defend himself as well as he can against each separate demand; a court of equity will not grant him an interpleader." 3 Pom. Eq. Jur.§§ 132, 324; Story, Eq Pl. § 293; Gibson v. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 281. The bill in this case does not aver a privity between the claimants, nor that their title to the property in question as to all the defendants, is derived from a common source. As to the claim of the several defendants, all that is averred as to the title is, that the Mary Lee Coal & Railway Company caused and procured an attachment to be issued out of the city court of Gadsden, in its favor, against the Etowah Furnace Company, and levied on the property in question; that the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company claims said pig iron under an alleged mortgage given by the Etowah Furnace Company, which produced said iron; that Knox & Co. commenced an action of detinue in the city court of Gadsden, to recover 202 tons of said iron,-a part of the whole lot in complainant's hands,-and claim to own the same, but how or from whom they derived title is not averred; that the remainder of the said lot of iron not claimed by said Knox & Co. is claimed by...