Patterson v. Delaware & Hudson Co.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1918
• Docket Number: 2348.
• Citation: 251 F. 255
• Parties: PATTERSON et al v. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

251 F. 255

PATTERSON et al v. DELAWARE & HUDSON CO. et al.

No. 2348.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

May 16, 1918

M. J Martin of Scranton, Pa., and J. Fred Schafrer, of Sunbury Pa., for appellants.

James H. Torrey, Thomas A. Donahoe, and Donahoe & Helriegel, all of Scranton, Pa., for appellees.

Before BUFFINGTON, McPHERSON, and WOOLLEY, Circuit Judges.

McPHERSON Circuit Judge.

On April 16, 1917, the plaintiffs, as executors and trustees under the will of Roswell P. Patterson, filed a bill of complaint asking that the Delaware & Hudson Company be enjoined from trespassing upon certain property of the plaintiffs, and from removing coal, culm, and other material therefrom, accounting for the culm already removed. On April 23 a restraining order was issued, and a rule was granted to show cause why the order should not be continued-- in effect why a preliminary injunction should not be granted. The culm was upon the property described, and was being removed by John J. Coyne under an agreement, made in March, 1917, by which Coyne bought the culm for a lump sum and the company leased the ground and conveyed the right to remove. The jurisdiction of the District Court was invoked solely on the ground of diversity of citizenship; the plaintiffs being citizens of Pennsylvania, and the defendant being a New York corporation. The company moved to dismiss the bill on the ground that Coyne was an indispensable party, because his property rights would be directly affected by the decree. On May 7 the rule for the preliminary injunction and the motion to dismiss were heard together, and testimony was taken by the District Judge. On June 20 the plaintiffs moved to amend by making Coyne a party defendant, and by adding averments concerning Coyne's occupancy of the premises and removal of the culm therefrom. The court allowed the amendment and granted the injunction on terms. Coyne appeared conditionally, and on August 1 filed an answer setting up that he was a citizen of Pennsylvania, claiming the right to set up this defense, and moving to dismiss on the ground of the court's lack of jurisdiction. The company also filed an answer to the amended bill, in which a similar motion was made. These motions were sustained, and a decree was afterward entered dismissing the bill on the ground of Coyne's citizenship. The pending appeal is from this decree.

The testimony showed that the plaintiff's testator had been the owner of a farm in the Middle district of Pennsylvania, title to which had formerly been in Leonard Starkweather, who in 1829 had conveyed certain rights therein to the defendant company, then the Delaware & Hudson Canal Company. The conveyance was 'for the use, purposes, and conveniences of the railroad'; and, as in 1900 the company had abandoned its railroad (at least to some extent) laid upon the tract conveyed in 1829, the plaintiffs contended that the fee of the land, with the culm deposited thereon by the company, had reverted to their testator or to his heirs, and that the company had no right to make the sale and lease to Coyne. The culm had been deposited on the roadbed while the railroad was in operation, and on this and other grounds the company asserted a right to make the deposit and to exercise ownership thereof.

The merits of the controversy are not before us, and we intimate...