Page Belting Co. v. F. H. Prince & Co.

Decision Date04 June 1907
Citation67 A. 401,74 N.H. 262
PartiesPAGE BELTING CO. v. F. H. PRINCE & CO. et al.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Transferred from Superior Court; Peaslee, Judge.

Bill of interpleader by the Page Belting Company against F. H. Prince & Co. and others. Demurrer to bill was overruled, subject to exception. Exception overruled.

Elwin L. Page, for plaintiff. Burnham, Brown, Jones & Warren, for defendant Prince. Streeter & Hollis, for defendants Wallace.

WALKER, J. This is a bill of interpleader, to which the defendant Prince, doing business under the firm name of Prince & Co., filed a demurrer, and the other defendants, representing the partnership of E. G. & E. Wallace, have filed an answer. The question now before the court arises upon the demurrer, which the superior court overruled, subject to exception. The plaintiff's allegations are in substance as follows: Prince holds 435 shares of the capital stock of the plaintiff corporation, issued to him as trustee, and by virtue of his certificate he claims the dividends which have been declared upon the stock, and which the plaintiff holds in its possession. He has demanded payment of the same of the plaintiff, which it has refused to comply with. The stock in question was originally sold by the Wallaces to Coffin & Stanton in 1804. At the same time the Wallaces employed Prince to purchase for them certain bonds of the city of Ironwood, in the state of Michigan. Prince, acting as the agent of the Wallaces, on September 22, 1894, entered into a contract with Coffin & Stanton, by which they agreed to deliver to the Wallaces bonds of the city of Ironwood to the amount of $150,000, properly certified, and to deposit with Prince, as agent of the Wallaces, the stock above referred to as security for the performance of their agreement. In pursuance of this understanding, Coffin & Stanton delivered to Prince, as agent of the Wallaces, certificates of the stock of the plaintiff corporation for 435 shares as security for their delivery of the Ironwood bonds. The bonds were never legally issued, and were never delivered or tendered to the Wallaces, or to their agent, Prince. Coffin &. Stanton soon became insolvent, and a receiver was appointed, who, after the affairs of the firm were wound up, was discharged on the 25th day of August, 1905. It is claimed by the Wallaces that the pledged stock became their property upon the failure of Coffin & Stanton to deliver the bonds, and, if not, that the right of Coffin & Stanton to redeem the stock has been lost; said firm having relinquished all interest in the stock in satisfaction of their breach of the contract to deliver the bonds. After the failure of Coffin & Stanton to deliver the bonds, Prince surrendered the certificates for the stock to the plaintiff, and "wrongfully" took a new certificate' for the same in the name of P. H. Prince & Co., trustee. Although requested, Prince has refused to deliver the certificate of the stock to the Wallaces. Both Prince and the Wallaces have demanded the payment of the dividends, but no claim has been made upon the plaintiff by Coffin & Stanton, or their receiver. Many of the foregoing allegations appear in the answer of the Wallaces, which were incorporated into the bill by an amendment. The plaintiff filed an affidavit of noncollusion.

The general principles of justice' and equity in accordance with which bills of interpleader are sustained are not doubtful. In this state they have been clearly stated in Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 354, where it is said (pages 360, 361): "When the party would maintain a bill of the character of this one, he must allege and show that he is ignorant of the rights of the different claimants, or, at least, that there is doubt as to which of them is entitled to the fund or other matter which is the subject-matter of the proceeding. It can be maintained only when the same debt or duty or other thing is claimed by two or more parties by different and separate interests, and in which the claimant [plaintiff] has no interest beyond that of a mere trustee or stakeholder, and where, from his own showing, he cannot determine the right between the conflicting claimants without hazard to himself. * * * The danger of injury to the complainant, arising out of the opposing claims and doubtful rights of the several defendants as between themselves, is the general ground of jurisdiction in the case of a simple bill of interpleader. It must appear from the complainant's own showing that he cannot pay the debt or render the duty or other thing to either of the parties claiming the same without some risk of being substantially liable for the same debt or duty to the other." This general statement of the law of interpleader is recognized as sound by the authorities (4 Pom. Eq. Jur. § 1320 et seq.; Macl. Interp. 10; Salisbury Mills v. Townsend, 109 Mass. 115, 121; Crane v. McDonald, 118 N. Y. 648, 655, 23 N. E. 991)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Barrett v. Cady
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • December 7, 1915
    ...risk of being subsequently liable for the same debt or duty to the other." Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 354, 361; Page Belting Co. v. Prince, 74 N. H. 262, 263, 264, 67 Atl. 401; Golden Cross v. Donaghey, 74 N. H. 466, 467, 468, 69 Atl. 263; Badeau v. Rogers, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 209. Hence an exec......
  • Tagr Bllting Co. v. F. H. Prince & Co.
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1914
    ...against F. H. Prince & Co. and others. Facts found, and case transferred from the superior court. Exceptions overruled. See, also, 74 N. H. 262, 67 Atl. 401. After the decision overruling the demurrer of Prince & Co., they filed an answer disclaiming any beneficial interest in the 435 share......
  • Belcher v. The Manchester Building and Loan Association
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1907
  • Supreme Commandery United Order of the Golden Cross Donaghey
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • March 3, 1908
    ...may be technically so or not. Farley v. Blood, 30 N. H. 354, 361; Parker v. Barker, 42 N. H. 78, 93, 77 Am. Dec. 789; Page Belting Co. v. Prince, 74 N. H. 262, 67 Atl. 401; 23 Cyc. 21-33; Macl. Interp. 128-130, To sustain the demurrer in this case would necessitate a decree that the bill wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT