Thompson v. Railroad Companies
| Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. RAILROAD COMPANIES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The case was this: The code of civil procedure of Ohio provides that every action must be prosecuted 'in the name of the real party in interest,' &c. and 'that the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity, and the forms of all such actions and suits heretofore existing, are abolished; and in their place there shall be, hereafter, but one form of action, which shall be called a civil action.'
With this provision of the code in force, the Central Ohio and another railroad company agreed to transport over their road, for one Thompson, a quantity of horses and mules, stipulating for payment in a certain mode, to which Thompson assented. In conformity with this agreement (the service having been performed), drafts were drawn on Thompson, which he neglected or refused to pay. These drafts, for convenience of collection, were drawn payable to the order of a certain D. Robinson, cashier; Robinson having, however, no interest in the proceeds. To e force the collection, what is termed as above mentioned, by the code in Ohio, a civil action, was instituted in one of the courts of the State, against Thompson, in the name of the railroad companies. The petition (used in lieu of a declaration), stated the original indebtedness from Thompson for freight, the giving of the drafts, their protest for non-acceptance or non-payment, and after averring that the plaintiffs were compelled to take them up, asked for judgment against the defendant for principal and interest. Thompson being a citizen of Kentucky removed the cause to the Federal court. When it reached there, by leave of the court, a bill in equity (setting up the same cause of action) was substituted for the petition originally filed in the State court, and the suit went on as a cause in chancery. The Circuit Court rendered a decree in favor of the complainants for the amount of the drafts, with interest. From this decree the defendants appealed, assigning as the chief ground of error that the complainants had a plain and adequate remedy at law, which they had in fact pursued in the State court, and which they ought to have followed out in the Federal court.
Messrs. Carlisle and McPherson, for the appellants, and in support of that view.
Mr. H. H. Hunter, contra, for the Railroad Companies, appellees:
1. Where a case is supposed to be not cognizable in a court of equity, the objection should be interposed in the first instance. After the suit has been regularly heard below upon its merits, the objection comes too late.
2. But had the complainant adequate and plain remedy at law? The case was commenced in the State court, and from a legal necessity, in the names of the complainants as plaintiffs. They were 'the real parties in interest' in the drafts, and they were exclusively interested in them. Being thus, necessarily, the plaintiffs in the case in the State court, they also, from legal necessity, remained plaintiffs in the Circuit Court after the removal of the case.
It is incontrovertible that the legal title of the drafts was in the payee, Robinson, and equally certain that the complainants were the equitable owners of them. Hence no action at law could be sustained on them in the names of the complainants, but only in the name of Robinson. By the practice of courts in general, the complainants, being the equitable owners, had the right to sue, at law, in the name of Robinson. But, by the Ohio code such mode of suit is expressly forbidden.
The cause of action on which the relief is prayed are the drafts specifically. To enforce the collection of them, the suit or civil action was originally brought. The suit is not on the contract, which, though referred to, is referred to only as an inducement and to disclose the equity of the complainants to the drafts.
Has a court of equity jurisdiction over such a case as is presented by this record? If it has not, the decree of the court below must be reversed, the bill dismissed, and the parties remitted to the court below to litigate their controversies in court of law. Usually, where a case is not cognizable in a court of equity, the objection is interposed in the first instance, but if a plain defect of jurisdiction appears at the hearing, or on appeal, a court of equity will not make a decree.1
The Constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress, recognize and establish the distinction between law and equity. The remedies in the courts of the United States are, at common law or in equity, not according...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
... ... was invested in the corporate business. In 1893 both ... companies were insolvent, and through the creditors' ... suits, primary and ancillary, before named, their ... liabilities shall not apply to railroad corporations, nor ... corporations for religious or charitable purposes. ' The ... General ... 436, 10 L.Ed. 235; Bennett v ... Butterworth, 11 How. 669, 13 L.Ed. 859; Thompson v ... Railroad Company, 6 Wall. 134, 18 L.Ed. 765; Foster ... v. Mora, 98 U.S. 425, 25 L.Ed ... ...
-
Freeman v. Bee Machine Co
...Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 320, 25 L.Ed. 667. The forms and modes of proceeding are governed by federal law. Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 134, 18 L.Ed. 765; Hurt v. Hollingsworth, 100 U.S. 100, 25 L.Ed. 569; West v. Smith, 101 U.S. 263, 25 L.Ed. 809; King v. Worthington, 10......
-
Schurmeier v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... Scovill v. Glasner, 79 Mo. 449, 453; Crofford v ... Cothran, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 492; Railroad Co. v ... Jones, 149 Ill. 361, 37 N.E. 247, 24 L.R.A. 141, 41 ... Am.St.Rep. 278; Eylenfeldt ... any such consideration. ' Thompson v. Railroad ... Companies, 6 Wall. 134, 138, 18 L.Ed. 765 ... So the ... power of a ... ...
-
Gilmore v. Waples
...has been steadily maintained, although both jurisdictions are vested in the same courts. Fenn v. Holme, 21 How. 481, 484 ; Thompson v. Railroad Cos., 6 Wall. 134 ; Cates v. Allen, 149 U. S. 451, 13 Sup. Ct. 883, 977 ; Mississippi Mills v. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202, 205, 14 Sup. Ct. 75 . It is wel......
-
The Party Respectfully Requests a Jury Trial on All Issues So Triable: What Issues Are Triable to a Jury and What Issues Should Be Triable to a Jury? a Comment on the Right to a Jury Trial, With a Focus on Civil Trials, and When the Right Exists
...but the distinction between the two sorts of proceedings cannot be obliterated in the Federal courts. Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 73 U.S. 134, 137 (1868). So, if state law, in advance of judgment, treated the whole proceeding upon a simple contract, including determination of validity a......