The Cobre Grande Cooper Co. v. Greene

• Decision Date: 19 March 1902
• Docket Number: Civil 759
• Citation: 68 P. 524,8 Ariz. 98
• Parties: THE COBRE GRANDE COPPER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. GREENE et al., Defendants and Appellees. In the Matter of the Appeal of AXEL W. HALLENBORG et al., Interveners and Appellants
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

68 P. 524

8 Ariz. 98

THE COBRE GRANDE COPPER COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM C. GREENE et al., Defendants and Appellees. In the Matter of the Appeal of AXEL W. HALLENBORG et al., Interveners and Appellants

Civil No. 759

Supreme Court of Arizona

March 19, 1902

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. Webster Street Judge. Appeal dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

John J Hawkins, J. F. Wilson, and Atwater & Cruikshank, for Appellants.

That under the admitted facts in this case the petitioners were entitled to be allowed to intervene in this suit, see Anderson v. Jacksonville R. Co., 2 Woods (U.S.) 628 Fed. Cas. No. 358; Fidelity Trust Co. v. Mobile St. R.R Co., 53 F. 850; Bayliss v. La Fayette R.R. Co., 8 Biss. (U.S.) 193, Fed. Cas. No. 1140.

The old rule of exclusion of strangers has lost its pristine force, and the federal courts have fairly established the new rule that as far as possible all controversies relating to the subject-matter of the ownership or control of corporate properties should be determined in one action, and for that purpose intervention of strangers to the record, once grudgingly permitted, is now freely allowed and even welcomed. Grant v. East and West R. Co., 50 F. 795, 1 C.C.A. 681; Billings v. Aspen Mining etc. Co., 51 F. 338, 2 C.C.A. 252; Farmers' Trust etc. Co. v. Toledo R. Co., 67 F. 49; Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. Chicago and N.P.R. Co., 68 F. 412; French v. Gapen, 105 U.S. 509, 26 L.Ed. 951; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 4 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 559; Tilby v. Hayes, 27 Hun, 251; Ithaca Gas-Light Co. v. Trcman, 30 Hun, 212.

That petitioners have the right to appeal from the order of the court denying the application to intervene, see Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. v. New York etc. Ry. Co., 150 N.Y. 410, 55 Am. St. Rep. 689, 44 N.E. 1043, 34 L.R.A. 76; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 4 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 559; Stich v. Dickinson, 38 Cal. 608; State v. Parish Judge, 27 La. 184; Hackettstown Nat. Bank v. Yuengling Brewing Co., 74 F. 110, 20 C.C.A. 327; Coffee v. Greenfield, 55 Cal. 382; South Spring Co. v. Amador Co., 145 U.S. 300, 12 S.Ct. 921, 36 L.Ed. 712; Gaines v. Relf, 12 How. 472, 13 L.Ed. 1071; Johnson v. Waters, 111 U.S. 640, 4 S.Ct. 619, 28 L.Ed. 547; Humes v. Scroggs, 94 U.S. 22, 24 L.Ed. 51.

Barnes & Martin, L. H. Chalmers, Baker & Bennett, Herndon & Norris, and Robert E. Morrison, for Appellees.

That petitioners have no right of appeal, see Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S. 14, 24 L.Ed. 49; Lewis v. Baltimore and L.R. Co., 62 F. 218, 10 C.C.A. 446; Smith v. Glasgow etc. Co., 74 F. 332, 20 C.C.A. 432; Hamlin v. Toledo St. L. and K.C.R. Co., 78 F. 664, 24 C.C.A. 271, 36 L.R.A. 826; Credits Commutation Co. v. United States, 91 F. 570, 34 C.C.A. 12.

OPINION

DAVIS, J.

-- On the twenty-fifth day of November, 1899, the Cobre Grande Copper Company brought an action in the district court of Maricopa County against William C. Greene, George Mitchell and the Phoenix National Bank of Phoenix, Arizona Territory, to restrain the said bank from delivering to the said Greene and Mitchell certain title deeds and papers held in escrow, relating to mining property in the republic of Mexico, the right of possession to which was then involved in litigation pending between the plaintiff and said Greene in the courts of Mexico. The plaintiff, claiming rights under a contract from Greene for the purchase of said property, and alleging that it had been prevented from complying with the conditions thereof by the wrongful and fraudulent conduct of Greene and Mitchell, also sought relief in said action to prevent the enforcement of a forfeiture of said contract. An order for injunction was issued by the judge of said court, in accordance with the prayer of the complaint. On July 21, 1900, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in said action. Separate answers were filed by the defendants Green and Mitchell, raising issues of law and fact, upon which the parties finally went to trial on October 23, 1900. The trial continued through a number of days, and the case was fully submitted to the court for decision on November 1, 1900, when it was taken under advisement. On December 29, 1900, and before a judgment in the case had been rendered, Axel W. Hallenborg and James Shirley applied to the court by petition for leave to intervene and become parties to the suit upon the ground that they were interested therein as creditors and stockholders of the plaintiff company, and that, by a corrupt and fraudulent agreement entered into between the defendants in the suit and the officers of said company, the prosecution of the suit had been stopped, and was in danger of being abandoned. The application for leave to intervene was resisted by the plaintiff, as well as by the defendants Greene and Mitchell, upon several grounds, among which were that it came after the trial of the...