Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v. Conrad City Water Co.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1916 |
| Docket Number | 55. |
| Citation | 237 F. 673 |
| Parties | PACIFIC COAST PIPE CO. v. CONRAD CITY WATER CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Day & Mapes, of Helena, Mont., for plaintiff.
O. W McConnell, of Helena, Mont., and J. A. McDonough, of Great Falls, Mont., for defendants.
In this court in a law action in personam plaintiff procured an attachment of the defendant water company's realty, and recovered judgment against said defendant for $9,000. It brings this suit, alleging that execution upon said judgment was fruitless, in that, intermediate judgment and execution a suit against said defendant was brought in a court of this state to foreclose a mechanic's lien for $54.70, wherein allegations of insolvency, chaos, and probable damage to the lien claimant were made, resulting in the appointment of a receiver of all said defendants' property; the receiver then and at all times hitherto being in possession thereof. Other allegations are that the mechanic's lien is invalid or inferior to plaintiff's attachment, that the complaint therein was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the state court to appoint a receiver, that the foreclosure suit was of a scheme to hinder and delay satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment, and that plaintiff's attachment and judgment are entitled to priority over a pre-existing $80,000 bond issue of said defendant, security for its debts. The plaintiff in the foreclosure suit, the receiver, the trustee in the trust deed securing the bonds, a trustee holding the bonds, and the latter's beneficiaries are joined as defendants herein. The prayer is a decree establishing priority of said attachment and judgment, a receiver, and further relief.
Defendants deny lack of jurisdiction in the state court, deny invalidity and inferiority of the mechanic's lien, deny the alleged scheme, deny priority of plaintiff's attachment and judgment over the bond issue, and allege that subsequent to this suit the trustee in the trust deed in that behalf intervened in the mechanic's lien suit, and at the same time, in the same court, sued to foreclose the trust deed, joining this plaintiff as defendant, wherein the court extended the existing receivership to the latter suit, that by reason thereof the state court has 'exclusive jurisdiction of all the affairs and assets' of the water company, and that the instant suit should abate for that it was instituted against the receiver without leave of the state court.
These jurisdictional questions should have been presented to the court in limine, but were not, and the suit has been tried on the merits. They have not been and could not be waived, in that, even if parties consent, a court will not knowingly invade the jurisdiction of another court. As these issues of jurisdiction are determined against plaintiff, the merits will be noticed no further than they ought to be under the circumstances and for possible review.
Briefly, the aforesaid allegations of the complaint are found to be true, and plaintiff's attachment and judgment are entitled to priority over the bonds for that the latter are invalid, having been issued and now and at all times held to secure pre-existing debts, in violation of the Constitution of this state (article 15, Sec. 10), wherein the water company is incorporated, that no corporate bonds shall issue 'except for labor done, services performed, or money, and property, actually received. ' See Chavelle v. Trust Co., 226 F. 408, 141 C.C.A. 230; In re Paper Corp., 229 F. 489, 143 C.C.A. 557.
If this state court receivership is void, if the receiver was appointed without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hess Warming & Ventilating Company v. Burlington Grain Elevator Company
...of other states. Lyon v. Bleeg, 240 F. 405; Progressive Wall Paper Corp., 229 F. 489; Chavelle Trust Co., 226 F. 400; Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v. Water Co., 237 F. 673; Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Car Co., 45 F. Waterloo Organ Co., 134 F. 341; Rolapp v. Railroad Co., 37 Utah 540; Wyoming Vall......
-
Ke-Sun Oil Co. v. Hamilton
...of attachment had been issued was asked to ignore the receivership and to proceed with the sale of the property. This the trial court (237 F. 673) refused to do, and was sustained therein by this court. The reasoning of that case is applicable to the case at bar in so far as it relates to r......
-
CTC Inv. Co. v. Daniel Boone Coal Corporation
...F. 182; Gay v. Hudson River, etc., Co. (C. C.) 182 F. 279; Jackson v. Parkersburg, etc., Ry. Co. (D. C.) 233 F. 784; Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v. Conrad (D. C.) 237 F. 673; Oppenheimer v. San Antonio Co. (C. C. A.) 246 F. 934; Havner v. Hegnes (C. C. A.) 269 F. 537; Chillicothe Furniture Co. v......
-
In re Mifflinburg Body Co., 7876.
...& Wilson, 8 Cir., 1915, 224 F. 919; Cass Bank & Trust Co. v. Sheehan, 8 Cir., 1938, 97 F. 2d 935. Montana: Pacific Coast Pipe Co. v. Conrad City Water Co., D.C., 237 F. 673, affirmed 9 Cir., 1917, 245 F. New York: (leading case) In re Progressive Wall Paper Corp., 2 Cir., 1916, 229 F. 489, ......