Terry v. Hague

• Decision Date: 08 May 1923
• Docket Number: No. 17357.,17357.
• Citation: 251 S.W. 77
• Parties: TERRY v. HAGUE et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

251 S.W. 77

TERRY v. HAGUE et al.

No. 17357.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

May 8, 1923.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by P. S. Terry against John Hague and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants the American Central Insurance Company, the National Fire Insurance Company, and the Reciprocal Exchange, all corporations appeal. Reversed.

Leahy, Saunders & Walther, of St. Louis, for appellants.

P. S. Terry, of Festus, pro se.

BRUERE, C.

This is a suit by injunction brought, on June 24, 1920, by the plaintiff respondent here, in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Mo., against the appellant and other defendants therein named.

The suit seeks to enjoin paid defendant from prosecuting in any manner three suits which appellants had respectively institute( against the plaintiff in the circuit court o the city of St. Louis, Mo., and to prohibit them from filing any further suits against the plaintiff.

A temporary injunction was granted en joining the defendants as prayed for in the petition; and upon the trial on the merits the temporary writ was made permanent From this judgment the appellants have perfected an appeal to this court.

The petition states, in substance, that the plaintiff was the attorney for defendants American Central Insurance Company, National Fire Insurance Company, Reciprocal Exchange, John Hague, and W. H. Pilliard in a certain suit of the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company against the Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railroad Company, in which he collected $6,000; that under his contract with said defendants he was entitled to an attorney's fee of $2,000; that W. H. Pilliard and John Hague claimed the balance of $4,000 under an assignment made to them, by the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company, prior to the trial of the case of Twin City Ice & Creamery Company against the Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railroad Company that W. H. Pilliard claimed $2,500 of said $4,000 by reason of having performed certain services for the appellants in the prosecution of the case of the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company against the Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railroad Company, to wit, furnishing and transporting of witnesses; that the $4,000 claimed was collected from the Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railroad Company as damages for the destruction by fire of the property belonging to the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company; that said W. E. Pilliard further claimed that there were no articles of subrogation, no interest of the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company, assigned, transferred, or delivered to the appellants, and that large amounts of property destroyed by said fire were not covered by any insurance policy; that John Hague claimed $3,600 of said $4,000 by reason of owning nine-tenths of the stock of said Twin City Ice & Creamery Company; that said John Hague further claimed that there were no articles of subrogation, no interest of the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company, assigned, transferred, or delivered to the appellants, and that large amounts of property destroyed by said fire were not covered by any insurance policy; that the appellants claimed all of said $4,000 by reason of having paid certain sums of insurance to the Twin City Ice & Creamery Company, under certain fire insurance policies issued by them to it, for the loss caused by said fire, and for which loss the $6,000 was collected; that the appellants claimed that they had been subrogated to all the rights of said Twin City Ice & Creamery Company, against said Mississippi River & Bonne Terre Railroad Company, by reason of the payment to it of said sums of insurance.

The petition further states that upon the claims being made as aforesaid, the plaintiff demanded bonds from the appellants before he would make payment; that plaintiff, believing he might have to pay said $4,000 twice and to avoid much vexatious litigation, caused to be filed in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Mo., an interpleader suit against defendants, the above-named insurance companies, and defendants W. H. Pilliard and John Hague; that in the bill of interpleader plaintiff alleged that the above, named defendants claimed said $4,000, and that their claims were in amounts and manner the same as set out in this petition; that said bill further stated that plaintiff had no interest in the said sum, that he had no adequate remedy at law, and that he was in danger of being sued by all of said defendants and of being compelled to go to great expense to defend against a multiplicity of lawsuits; and that plaintiff had deposited said $4,000 with the circuit clerk of Jefferson county, Mo.

The petition further states that, upon the filing of the bill of interpleader, the judge of the circuit court of Jefferson county, Mo., caused to be issued summons against all the defendants; that appellants and W. H. Pilliard and John Hague filed answers to said bill of interpleader, and said cause was tried in the circuit court of Jefferson county, Mo., and by the court taken under advisement; that the appellants had vexatiously brought many suits against the plaintiff, which were wholly bottomed on said $4,000, and were threatening to prosecute many suits against the plaintiff in jurisdictions foreign to plaintiff's residence, for the sole purpose of harassing and annoying the plaintiff and destroying his business occupation and profession of lawyer; that the defendant, by these acts and vexatious suits, were depriving the circuit court of Jefferson county of its jurisdiction, thwarting justice and attempting to render the decree of said court of no force; that the injuries to plaintiff, which would be caused by said acts of defendants in the prosecution of said suits against him, were not susceptible of compensation in damages; and that by reason of the premises aforesaid the ordinary process of law would afford plaintiff no substantial remedy.

The petition prays that the defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, be perpetually enjoined from bringing any further suits against the plaintiff bottomed on said $6,000 and from prosecuting the said actions then pending against the plaintiff in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo., and that the defendants be compelled and ordered to dismiss said suits.

Appellants filed their motion to dissolve the temporary injunction and to dismiss the petition for the following reasons, to wit:

"(1) Because the petition shows on its...