Perham v. Haverhill Fiber Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1886
• Parties: PERHAM, Trustee v. HAVERHILL FIBER CO. and another.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

3 A. 312

64 N.H. 2

PERHAM, Trustee

v. HAVERHILL FIBER CO. and another.¹

SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Filed March 12, 1886.

Bill in equity, by the plaintiff, as trustee, for himself and others, praying that two deeds given by the collector of taxes of the town of Haverhill for the year 1883 to the defendant Pike, of two tracts of land, may be decreed void.

FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT.

In 1882 the plaintiff conveyed to the said fiber company a mill and mill privilege in Haverhill, and, as trustee of the Haverhill Pulp Company, also conveyed another tract of land in Haverhill to said fiber company. In April, 1883, the selectmen assessed said property for taxation, as non-resident, giving a description of the same, and adding, "Supposed to be owned by Haverhill Fiber Company." At that time the selectmen knew that said company owned this real estate. But the company had never occupied it; it having been in the possession of other parties as tenants or occupants, who did not consent to be taxed for it. The fiber company is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $4,000, which sum is a part of the consideration for said conveyance by him to the company. February 15, 1885, he began an action at law against the company to recover this debt, and attached all the real estate of the company in Haverhill. In that action the defendant was defaulted. The defendants demurred, and claimed that the plaintiff's cestuis que trust should have been joined as plaintiffs.

Chase & Streeter and S. T. Page, for plaintiff.

Bingham, Mitchells & Batchellor and Mr. Chapman, for defendants.

ALLEN, J. The defendants object to a decree, upon the ground that other parties interested in the merits of the proceeding have not been joined as plaintiffs. It will be ascertained at the trial term whether or not there are other persons whose interests would be affected by a decree, and if that be found, they can be joined as parties.

The estate in question being subject to execution, the plaintiff, having obtained a specific lien upon the property by attachment in his suit at law, may maintain a bill to remove a cloud from the title, when, as in this case, the facts which entitle him to relief are not of record, and the cloud sought to be removed exists or is imminent. Tappan v. Evans, 11 N. H. 311; Stone v. Anderson, 26 N. H. 506; Sheafe v. Sheafe, 40 N. H. 516; Brooks v. Howland, 58 N. H. 98; Eastman v. Thayer, 60 N. H. 408.

The owners of the real estate being known to the...