McSorley v. Coyle

• Decision Date: 14 July 1909
• Docket Number: 171-1909
• Parties: McSorley v. Coyle, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

40 Pa.Super. 560

McSorley v. Coyle, Appellant

No. 171-1909

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 14, 1909

Argued April 28, 1909

Appeal by defendants, from various orders of C.P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Third Term, 1908, No. 255, in favor of the plaintiff in suit of John McSorley v. William L. Coyle et al., doing business as Coyle Brothers.

Petition for interpleader.

Demurrer to statement of claim.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Errors assigned were refusal of interpleader; overruling demurrer to statement; making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

E. J Kent, for appellant. -- Where the suggestion for interpleader filed, shows that the funds sued for in the hands of the defendants is claimed by third persons and defendants disclaim all interest in the subject-matter of the action and offer to pay the money into court or dispose of the same as the court may order, it is the duty of the court to award an issue of interpleader: Vandergrift v. Freeman, 1 W.N.C. 109; Laughlin v. McCormick, 2 W.N.C. 352; Aland v. Dollar Savings Bank, 31 Pitts. L. J. 80; Bechtel v. Sheafer, 117 Pa. 555; DeZouche v Garrison, 140 Pa. 430.

It is a general rule that when an agent's authority is not coupled with a beneficial interest in the subject-matter of the agency, the principal may revoke his agent's authority at any time: Blackstone v. Buttermore, 53 Pa. 266; Coffin v. Landis, 46 Pa. 426; Hartley &amp Minor's App., 53 Pa. 212.

Appellee does not show or allege any damage. He does not allege that he has paid the liens, or that the city asked him to pay the same, that the city has taken any steps to compel the payment thereof; and appellee is not personally liable or personally obligated therefor: Mayer v. Walter, 64 Pa. 283.

C. K. Robinson, with him J. F. McNaul, for appellee. -- Defendants have assumed a personal liability to plaintiff, which is fatal to interpleader: Bridesburg Mfg. Co.'s App., 106 Pa. 275; Bechtel v. Sheafer, 117 Pa. 555; DeZouche v. Garrison, 140 Pa. 430.

There are no rival claimants to the same fund; this is fatal to the interpleader: Bridesburg Mfg. Co.'s App., 106 Pa. 275.

There was adequate consideration for the promise: Flannery v. Dechert, 13 Pa. 505; McNish v. Reynolds, Lamberton & Co., 95 Pa. 483; Smith v. McKenna, 53 Pa. 151.

The measure of damages is amount of lien: Ardesco Oil Co. v. Oil & Mining Co., 66 Pa. 375.

Appellants have received funds for an express purpose: Lee v. Gibbons, 14 S. & R. 104; Winton Coal Co. v. Pancoast Coal Co., 170 Pa. 437; Humbird v. Davis, 210 Pa. 311; Whitney v. Haskell, 216 Pa. 622; Kirkpatrick v. McDonald, 11 Pa. 387-392; Stoudt v. Hine, 45 Pa. 30; Hindmarch v. Hoffman, 127 Pa. 284.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

OPINION

HENDERSON, J.

There were three stages in the development of this case from the judgment in each of which the defendants appealed. The first assignment excepts to the refusal of the court to award an interpleader between the plaintiff and Sarah I. and W. I. Mustin on the petition of the defendants setting forth that they were stakeholders merely and that the fund for which the plaintiff sued was claimed by Sarah I. Mustin and William I. Mustin. The declaration set forth the plaintiff's cause of action from which it appears that the said Sarah I. Mustin and William I. Mustin, her husband, conveyed to the plaintiff certain real estate in the city of Pittsburg against which at the time of the conveyance a municipal lien existed which the vendors were unable to remove because the assessments had not been made out and had not yet become payable at the office of the city treasurer. In order, therefore, to satisfy the vendee and relieve him from liability on account of the lien an agreement in writing was entered into to which the vendors, the vendee and the defendants in this action were the parties. Coyle Brothers were the agents of the vendors for the collection of rents and they were brought into the contract for that reason. By the terms of this agreement the vendors bound themselves to pay and satisfy the lien existing against the property they were about to convey as soon as the assessment was made up and in a situation permitting its payment to the city treasurer of Pittsburg. The agreement contained the further provision that Coyle Brothers, the agents of the grantor, should hold a sufficient amount of rents which might come into their hands belonging to the vendors to satisfy the said lien, with the further provision that if the vendors should fail to satisfy the lien within fifteen days after the same became payable then Coyle Brothers were forthwith to apply so much of said rents to the payment of the lien as might be necessary to fully satisfy and discharge it. This agreement was under seal. Several objections were made by the plaintiff to the granting of an interpleader. Without entering into a discussion of all of them, two were sufficient to support the action of the court. One of these was that the defendants' liability was a direct engagement to pay the amount of the lien at once on failure of the grantors to do so within the time fixed in the contract. This undertaking of the defendants was assumed because the grantors, their principals, desired to relieve the property of the incumbrance and placed in the hands of the defendants a sufficient sum to discharge the liability. The defendants in becoming parties to the contract undertook to perform if their principals failed and it is admitted that a fund was in the defendants' hands sufficient to carry out this promise. It is the rule generally speaking relating to interpleaders that the petitioner for such an issue must be free from any independent liability to either of the parties claiming the fund. If he has expressly acknowledged the title and right of one of them and agreed to hold the property for him he is not an indifferent stakeholder: Bechtel v. Sheafer, 117 Pa. 555, 11 A. 889; DeZouche v. Garrison, 140 Pa. 430. The petition for the interpleader admits the contract as set forth in the plaintiff's declaration; it is not disputed that the plaintiff's grantors did not pay within the time stipulated in the agreement and the defendants, therefore, became bound to the plaintiff on the terms of that instrument. The title was accepted by the plaintiff presumably on the consideration in part, at least, of the undertaking of the defendants to satisfy the lien, and their obligation so to do was directly to the plaintiff. No change or transfer of the fund in the defendants' hands had been made...