Thomas v. Hukill

• Decision Date: 06 January 1890
• Citation: Thomas v. Hukill, 131 Pa. 298, 18 A. 875 (Pa. 1890)
• Docket Number: 235
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: T. R. THOMAS ET AL. v. E. M. HUKILL

131 Pa. 298

T. R. THOMAS ET AL. v. E. M. HUKILL.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued November 7, 1889.

Decided January 6, 1890.

Before PAXSON, C. J., STERRETT, GREEN, CLARK, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM and MITCHELL, JJ.

APPEAL BY PLAINTIFFS FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, IN EQUITY.

No. 235 October Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 351 July Term 1889, C. P. No. 2. in Equity.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mr. George Shiras, Jr. (with him Mr. W. K. Shiras and Mr. C. C. Dickey), for the appellants.

Counsel cited: Mitchell v. Bunch, 2 Paige 606 (22 Am. Dec. 669); Vaughan v. Barclay, 6 Wh. 392; Lord Baltimore's Case, Bispham's Eq., § 47; Penn v. Baltimore, 2 Lead. Cas. Eq. 767; Muller v. Dows, 4 Otto 444; McElrath v. Pittsburgh etc. R. Co., 55 Pa. 189; Brown v. Vandergrift, 80 Pa. 142; Galey v. Kellerman, 123 Pa. 491; Stewart's App., 78 Pa. 88; Martin v. Graves, 5 Allen 601; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 43 Pa. 417; Bispham's Eq., § 474; Allison's App., 77 Pa. 221; Story's Eq. Jur., § 33; Wylie v. Coxe, 15 How. 415; Garrison v. Insurance Co., 19 How. 312; May v. LeClaire, 11 Wall. 217; Brush Elec. Co.'s App., 114 Pa. 574; Bierbower's App., 107 Pa. 14; Earley's App., 121 Pa. 496; Ferguson's App., 117 Pa. 426; Hacke's App., 101 Pa. 245; Bitting's App., 105 Pa. 517.

Mr. John M. Kennedy (with him Mr. M. F. Elliott and Mr. James C. Doty), for the appellee.

Counsel cited: Bowyer v. Seymour, 13 W. Va. 12; Pittsburgh etc. Drove Yard Co.'s App., 123 Pa. 250; Witten v. St. Clair, 27 W. Va. 762; Haines's App., 73 Pa. 169; Barclay's App., 93 Pa. 50; Long's App., 92 Pa. 171; Richard's App., 100 Pa. 51; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 568; North Penna. Coal Co. v. Snowden, 42 Pa. 488; Messimer's App., 92 Pa. 168; Meck's App., 97 Pa. 313; Jones v. Fox, 20 W. Va. 370; 4 Minor's Institutes, 594.

PER CURIAM:

The learned judge below held that he had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this controversy, notwithstanding it was real estate situated in West Virginia, from the fact that the parties, plaintiffs and defendant, were residents of the county of Allegheny. He dismissed the bill, however, upon the ground that it was an ejectment bill, and that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law, either by an action of ejectment in the courts of West Virginia, or in an action at law for damages, and cited Stewart's Appeal, 78 Pa. 88. We entirely agree with the conclusion of the learned judge, and are not disposed to criticise his reasons therefor, further than to say that, while it is true the residence of all the parties in the county of Allegheny gave the court jurisdiction over them, the fact of the subject-matter of the controversy being real estate situate in another state rendered the exercise of such jurisdiction of at least doubtful propriety. While the proceeding was in form a bill in equity, it was in substance a possessory action, involving the title to real estate. In such case a decree of this court could only affect the persons of the litigants; it could not control the title or possession of a tract of land in West Virginia.

The decree is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.