Payne v. West Point Wholesale Grocery Co.
| Decision Date | 14 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2122. |
| Citation | 105 S.E. 608,151 Ga. 46 |
| Parties | PAYNE, DIRECTOR GENERAL, v. WEST POINT WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court did not err in refusing the injunction and other relief sought in this case.
Error from Superior Court, Troup County; J. R. Terrell, Judge.
Suit by J. B. Payne, Director General of Railroad Administration of the United States, against the West Point Wholesale Grocery Company and others. An interlocutory injunction was refused and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
The defendants in error, 12 or more in number, filed suits in the city court of La Grange, Ga., and in the justice's court of the 701st district, G. M., of Troup county, Ga., against W. D. Hines (since succeeded by John Martin Payne) as Director General of the Railroad Administration of the United States, operating the Atlanta and West Point Railroad and the Western Railway of Alabama. The subject-matter of these suits (50 or more) was damages from freight shipments. The defendant filed demurrers and pleas in all, or nearly all, of these cases. On May 12, 1920, the defendant filed his equitable petition in the superior court, in which it was alleged in substance as follows: About the 9th or 10th of December, 1918, while said two railroads were being operated as part of the system of railroads under the authority of the government, an unprecedented rise in the waters of the Chattahoochee river, upon which river is located the city of West Point, Ga., overflowed said city, and caused great loss and damage to the property therein. The city of West Point is one terminus of each of said two railroads, and each has its depots and yards in said city. At the time when the waters of the river flooded the city and depots, tracks, and yards of the two railroads, a large mass of goods and merchandise was in the possession of the two railroads in the city, either as common carrier or as warehouseman, and much loss and damage resulted to the same by waters of the flood. The Director General of Railroads, through his agents and employees in charge of these termini, was unable to protect the goods and merchandise from the loss and damage caused by the flood, and the loss was occasioned by the act of God, and under the law the government was not liable therefor. But a large number of the owners of such goods and merchandise have instituted a great number of suits in the city court of La Grange and the justice's court of the 701st district, G. M., of Troup county, varying from a few dollars to several thousand dollars. The West Point Wholesale Grocery Company has instituted 18 cases; the West Point Investment Company, 3 cases; Johnson & Co., 3 cases; Jones-Knight Grocery Company 2 cases; O. L. Shellnut, 2 Cases; Batson-Cook Company, 4 cases; and Eady Baker Grocery Company, 2 cases--all of these cases in the city court. In the justice court the West Point Wholesale Grocery Company instituted 6 cases; Nichols-Jones Furniture Company, 3 cases; O. L. Shellnut, 1 case; and Batson-Cook Company, 1 case. All the cases brought by the West Point Wholesale Grocery Company could have been incorporated into one suit; and the same is true as to the suits of the West Point Investment Company, Johnson & Co. Jones-Knight Grocery Company, O. L. Shellnut, Batson-Cook Company, and Eady Baker Grocery Company. Goldstein Bros., E H. Woodham, Farmers' Product Company, and Charles Kurtz instituted one suit each. The defense to each and all of these suits is the same, to wit, exemption from liability because the loss and damage claimed were occasioned by the act of God; and substantially the same evidence would be used to establish the said defense in each of the cases. The evidence for the plaintiff in each case to establish a prima facie case would be practically the same. The trial of any of said cases would involve a great mass of evidence, would consume days, and would incur a very great expense to secure the attendance of a large number of witnesses, many of whom are employees of the railroads, the services of whom are needed in the operation of the railroads. The sums in a large number of the cases are so small that the expense necessary to try them would exceed the amount claimed. The purpose was to force the government to pay the claims rather than assume the expense of a defense. The petitioner prays that the parties plaintiff in each of said suits be enjoined from prosecuting their several actions at law, and that they be made parties to this petition, and be required to file in this cause their several claims for destruction or damage to their property, and, when the answers setting up the claims of the various parties have been filed, that the court appoint an auditor and refer the case to him to investigate and report to the court his findings on all questions which may be made by the pleadings.
The defendants denied that all of the parties had a common right, insisted that the issues in all of the cases were not the same, and denied any purpose or intention by the bringing of the various suits to harass petitioner, etc. Upon the hearing the court refused to grant an interlocutory injunction, and the petitioner excepted.
Brewster, Howell & Heyman, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
B. J. Mayer and E. T. Moon, both of La Grange, for defendants in error.
BECK, P.J. (after stating the facts as above).
It is insisted that under the provisions of our statutes relating to certain branches of equitable jurisdiction the petitioner is entitled to the injunctive relief sought, and counsel quote the following provisions of law: Civil Code, § 5469, declaring:
And Civil Code, § 5419:
"Where there is one common right to be established by or against several, and one is asserting the right against many, or many against one, equity will determine the whole matter in one action."
Further, so much of section 5493, in regard to restraining trespasses, which declares that the avoidance of circuity and multiplicity of actions is among the grounds authorizing a court of equity to interfere to restrain trespasses. Also that part of section 4586 relating to accounts, and giving equity jurisdiction "where a multiplicity of suits would render a trial difficult, expensive, and unsatisfactory at law."
Notwithstanding the broad language used in certain of our decisions and in the decisions of other courts, applying the principles relating to equity jurisdiction, embodied in the Code sections from which we have quoted, we are of the opinion that the court below properly refused to grant the injunction sought. The fact that the defense set up by the plaintiff in this case to the various suits at law was involved in all of the cases would not alone have authorized the court to grant the injunction. In some of the suits which were brought for the recovery of damages the liability of the railroad companies might be that of warehouseman, or it might be that of common carrier of freight, in which cases a different rule of diligence would obtain and be applicable. Moreover, the various parties to this action not only have no community of interest in the subject-matter of the suit, but they have not a common right. Counsel for the plaintiff relies very largely upon the decision in the case of Smith v. Dobbins, 87 Ga. 303, 13 S.E. 496. In that case it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial