Ryder v. Bateman

• Decision Date: 03 October 1898
• Docket Number: 526.
• Parties: RYDER et al. v. BATEMAN et ux.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

93 F. 16

RYDER et al. v. BATEMAN et ux.

No. 526.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Tennessee.

October 3, 1898

The original bill sets out the will of one George P. Cooper as the source of title to the real estate involved; the plaintiff Iris C. Ryder claiming a life estate under that will, and the plaintiff Pauline A. Ryder, who is her daughter claiming the reversionary fee in the property under the will of her grandfather. The bill avers that many years ago the plaintiff Iris C. Ryder (in 1878) 'signed, sealed, and acknowledged, and caused to be placed on record,' a certain deed, conveying the property to a trustee, 'for and in consideration of the natural love and affection which she, the said Iris, has and bears to her daughter Marie V Swingley, and for and in consideration of five dollars cash in hand paid by said Adams,' to have and to hold 'in trust for said Marie V. Swingley forever, in fee simple, free from any and all debts and liabilities, as well as from the control of any husband she may ever have, to her only benefit and behoof. ' This Marie V. Swingley is the defendant and her husband, Bateman, is the co-defendant, to this bill. The bill further alleges that the financial consideration for this deed was never paid; that the deed was never delivered that the defendant Marie was not the offspring of the said Iris C. Ryder; that she had one child of the marriage to her first husband, A. L. Swingley, but that that child died, and the defendant Marie 'was related by blood to the first husband of the complainant Iris C. Ryder, and, when a small child, was taken by complainant Iris C. Ryder and her first husband into their family, and by them raised and cared for'; that such care has been continued, she being supported out of the rents of the property, until her marriage to Bateman. The bill next alleges that by a second marriage the plaintiff Pauline A. Ryder is the only child of the other plaintiff, Iris C. Ryder, the daughter of said George P. Cooper, the testator, and that they are the sole owners of the property, under the will. It further alleges that Bateman and wife are in possession, claiming title under the deed of gift, claiming the rents, refusing, as the agents of the plaintiff, to pay them over to her, and entirely excluding both plaintiffs from all share in them, and that they are endeavoring to sell the property, and are insolvent. It prays for a receiver, for an injunction, and that the deed of gift be canceled, 'as a cloud on the title of the plaintiff.'

This bill was filed on or about the 28th day of May, 1898, in the chancery court of Shelby county, Tenn., after which certain proceedings were had in that court until the 2d day of July 1898, two days before the process required the defendants to answer in that court. On that day the defendants filed their petition to remove the case to this court, in which they state 'that they are both residents of the state of California, and that their home and residence was in said state of California at the time when this suit was instituted'; that petitioner Marie V. Bateman 'is a citizen of said state of California, and was a citizen thereof at the time this suit was instituted'; that petitioner Louis T. Bateman 'is a citizen of Great Britain, and was a citizen thereof at the time when this suit was instituted'; 'That at the time this suit was instituted the complainants, Pauline Agnes Ryder and Iris C. Ryder, were both residents and citizens of the state of New York, and they both are still residents and citizens of the state of New York'; 'that the defendant Louis T. Bateman is merely a nominal defendant, and is only sued in his capacity as husband of Marie V., and petitioners allege that the controversy is separable, and can be fully determined, as between your petitioner Marie V. and the complainants, without the presence of any other defendant.' The necessary bond was filed along with this petition, but the record does not show that any order of the state court was ever entered, approving the bond, and directing the removal of the case to the federal court. The term of this court next ensuing after the filing of the petition for removal will occur on the fourth Monday of November, 1898. A transcript of the record was filed in the clerk's office of this court August 4, 1898,-- how or by whom does not appear, but certainly without any leave of the court to that end. That transcript shows that, among other proceedings in the state court, on the 1st day of July, 1898, the day before the petition for removal was filed, the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the bill, and given 10 days within which to file the amendment, and that on the 7th of July, 1898, after the petition for removal had been filed, the plaintiffs filed in that court the amended bill appearing in the transcript. We are informed by the brief of counsel, and the presentation of a copy of the chancellor's order, that, notwithstanding the petition and bond had been filed, the plaintiffs, ignoring the petition for removal, moved in the state court for a pro confesso, and appointment of a receiver by the chancellor. This he refused, as appears by a copy of his order presented by counsel, because the case had already been removed to the United States circuit court, and because the insolvency of the defendants and injury to the complainants were flatly denied. Immediately after the order of the chancellor refusing the receiver, notice of this application for the appointment of a receiver in this court was served, on the 13th day of August, 1898, after which defendants filed their sworn petition asking for an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce a certain deed, known as 'Exhibit D' to plaintiffs' amended bill, which they allege is a forgery, and that it was necessary for them to see the original document before they could file their answer, which they desired to use on the hearing of this application for a receiver. That application of the defendants was refused, for reasons stated in the opinion of the court heretofore filed herein.

The amended bill supplements the original bill with allegations of a somewhat different character. It avers that Nathan Adams, the trustee in the deed of gift, having died, the plaintiff Iris C. Ryder was substituted in his stead by a decree of the chancery court, upon proper proceedings instituted by her for that purpose, by a bill against the defendant Marie and the heirs of the deceased trustee, and that as such substituted trustee she is entitled to all the rights and powers vested in him, and 'is alone entitled to collect the rents,' etc. It then alleges that after the defendant Marie became of age, and in 1891, she executed 'a deed or contract' whereby she 'confirmed' the plaintiff Iris C. Ryder's 'right to manage and control the said property in as full and complete a manner as she would have managed and controlled it had the deed filed as Exhibit B to the original bill not be made,' and 'agreed, in consideration of the gifts she had received from complainant Iris C. Ryder,' that the plaintiff Agnes P. Ryder 'should share with herself the rents and profits derived from the said lands. ' It next alleges that Bateman, the husband of the defendant Marie, is extravagant and wasteful in his habits, that he entirely dominates and controls the defendant Marie, and that, unless restrained, he will convert the entire rentals and proceeds of sale, if able to sell, to the gratification of his own pleasures, and not to the exclusive behoof, use, and benefit of Marie V. Bateman, his wife. It also alleges, as does the original bill, that Louis T. Bateman and Marie V. Bateman are entirely insolvent, and, if they are permitted longer to collect the rents on the real estate, the complainants will sustain irreparable injury. The amended bill prays for a receiver, for the same relief as the original bill, and 'that on the final hearing of this cause the plaintiff Iris C. Ryder be given control and management of the property, and the right to collect the rents therefrom, by virtue of her trusteeship. Both bills waive the oath of defendants to their answer, and both the original bill and the amended bill are sworn to. The original bill alleges that Pauline Agnes Ryder, one of the plaintiffs, is a minor without a guardian, and sues by her mother and next friend, Iris C. Ryder, and that they are both residents of the city of New York, and state of New York, and that the defendants, Louis T. Bateman and his wife, Marie V. Bateman, are residents of the county of Shelby, and state of Tennessee.

After the motion for an order for the inspection of the plaintiffs' exhibit was refused, the defendants, on the 29th of August, 1898, filed their answer to the bill and the amended bill. The answer is sworn to by the defendants, and forwarded along with the transcript from the state court, to be used upon the hearing of this application for a receiver. This answer denies almost every material statement of the bill and the amended bill. It denies that under the will of George P. Cooper there was conferred only a life estate on the said Iris C. Ryder, as charged in the bill, and insists that she acquired a fee-simple title to the property she acquired under that will, and states that on the 30th day of January, 1890, by a proper decree of the chancery court of Shelby county, in the case of Severson against Ryder and others, with all the proper parties before it, and especially with both the plaintiffs and the defendant Marie V. Swingley as parties to the bill, that court construed the will as conferring upon the daughters of George P. Cooper an estate in fee, and not an estate for life, with a remainder over to their children. The answer denies that the plaintiff Pauline A. Ryder is the...