Trimble v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf R. Co.

• Decision Date: 17 March 1904
• Citation: 79 S.W. 678,180 Mo. 574
• Parties: TRIMBLE et al. v. KANSAS CITY, PITTSBURG & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 S.W. 678

180 Mo. 574

TRIMBLE et al. v. KANSAS CITY, PITTSBURG & GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

March 17, 1904

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. H. Slover, Judge.

Affirmed.

Lathrop Morrow, Fox & Moore and Samuel W. Sawyer for appellant.

(1) The United States court by the foreclosure proceedings and other proceedings therein, and particularly by the filing of plaintiffs' intervening petition, having first obtained complete jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties to this controversy, the trial court should have refused to entertain jurisdiction, or at least should have stayed proceedings until the intervening petition of plaintiffs pending in the United States court should have been heard and determined. 17 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (2 Ed.), 180; Hardware Co. v. Building Co., 132 Mo. 442; Butler v. Mining Co., 139 Mo. 467; Robinson v Investment Co., 80 Mo.App. 621; Watson v Jones, 13 Wall. (U.S.) 679; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148; Ex parte Balch, 3 McLean 221, Fed. Cas. No. 790; Earl v. Raymond, 4 McLean 233, Fed. Cas. No. 4243; Nelson v. Foster, 5 Biss. 44, Fed. Cas. No. 10105; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 Dill. 524, Fed. Cas. No. 1955; Radford v. Folsom, 14 F. 97; Sharon v. Terry, 36 F. 337, 1 L. R. A. 572; Jessup v. Railroad, 44 F. 663; President, etc., v. Merritt, 59 F. 6; Foley v. Hartley, 72 F. 570; Marks v. Marks, 75 F. 321; Gamble v. San Diego, 79 F. 487; Zimmerman v. So Relle, 80 F. 417, 25 C. C. A. 518; Hughes v. Green, 84 F. 833, 28 C. C. A. 537; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Norfolk, etc., Co., 88 F. 815; Ryan v. Railroad, 89 F. 397; Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 F. 668; Mercantile, etc., Co. v. Roanoke, etc., Co., 109 F. 3; State Trust Co. v. Railroad, 110 F. 10; Starr v. Chicago, etc., Co., 110 F. 3; Stewart v. Railroad, 117 F. 782; Farmers, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc., Co., 118 F. 204; Union, etc., Co. v. Riggs, 123 F. 312; Smith v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 2 Fost. (N. H.) 21; Wilson v. Milliken, 113 Ky. 165, 44 S.W. 660; Ewing v. Mallison, 65 Kan. 484, 70 P. 369; Riesener v. Railroad, 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53; Ins. Co. v. Howell, 24 N.J.Eq. 238; note in 29 Am. St. Rep. 312. (2) The plaintiffs have already received compensation from the receivers for the services sued for in this case. Gluck & Becker, Receivers (2 Ed.), sec. 42; High, Receivers (3 Ed.), sec. 314; Beach, Receivers (2 Ed.), sec. 373; Weeks, Attorneys at Law, sec. 271; Berry v. Rood, 168 Mo. 316; Macdonald v. Wagner, 5 Mo.App. 56; Clark v. Railroad, 66 F. 16; Platte v. Railroad, 65 F. 872; Mason v. Henry, 152 N.Y. 537; Lily v. Rosencrans, 55 Barb. (N. Y.) 202; Railroad v. Railroad, 63 N.W. 1035; Strong v. International Union, 183 Ill. 97, 55 N.E. 675, 47 L. R. A. 792. (3) The plaintiffs' claim, if any, was an unliquidated one, and therefore the court erred in allowing the plaintiffs interest from the date of the filing of their petition. 16 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 1015; Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 216; McCormack v. Lynch, 69 Mo.App. 524; Laming v. Peters Shoe Co., 71 Mo.App. 646; Murray v. Ware, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 325, 4 Am. Dec. 637; Swinnerton v. Argonaut, etc., Co., 112 Cal. 375, 44 P. 719; Hadley v. Ayres, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 240; Colorado, etc., Co. v. John, 5 Colo.App. 213, 38 P. 399; Louisville, etc., Co. v. Hargis, 33 S.W. 946.

Eaton & Loomis for respondents.

(1) Whether the defense set up in the answer is a plea in abatement, a plea to the jurisdiction, or a plea of first acquired jurisdiction is wholly immaterial under the authorities; as appears from the language of the answer, the defense, whatever it is, rests only upon what is called a suit pending in the Federal court. Under all rules of pleading, the amended statement supersedes previous statements. The claim in the Federal court is neither another suit pending, nor is it first acquired jurisdiction: (a) Here it is against the corporation for services rendered. There it is (should the contingency of a judgment obtained arise) a demand upon the judgment against the property under the jurisdiction of the Federal court, or the proceeds of its sale. (b) The parties are not the same, because, in the Federal court, the property has passed to the purchasing company, and it has been made a party defendant. (c) The subject-matter is not the same because this is an action for a personal judgment, while the claim in the Federal court is only against specific property and can go no further. (d) The relief sought is not the same, or anything like the same; for instance, a personal judgment is here sought against the Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf Railroad Company, while in the Federal court it is sought to have such judgment allowed as a preferential claim; it is only in that court at all in advance of the judgment here because of the limitation period fixed by the decree. (2) A suit pending in a Federal court does not abate or defeat a suit in the State court, although in the same district. Cooper v. Newell, 173 U.S 555; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U.S. 548; Bowne v. Joy, 9 Johns. 221; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 497; Maule v. Murray, 7 T. R. 466; Imlay v. Ellefsen, 2 East 457; Colt v. Partridge, 7 Met. 572; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. 328; Cox v. Mitchell, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 55; Wood v. Lake, 13 Wis. 91; Wadleigh v. Veazie, 3 Sumn. 167; Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 322; White v. Whitman, 1 Curt. 494; Salmon v. Wooten, 9 Dana 422; Yelverton v. Conant, 18 N.H. 124; Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Johns. 99; Davis v. Morton, 4 Bush 444; Gordon v. Gilfoil, 99 U.S. 168; Pierce v. Feagans, 39 F. 587; Sharon v. Hill, 22 F. 28; Mfg. Co. v. Scutt, 22 F. 710; Rodgers v. Pitt, 96 F. 677; Leidigh Carriage Co. v. Stengel, 95 F. 642; Ryan v. Railroad, 69 F. 407; Brendell v. Charch, 82 F. 262; Chaw v. Lyman, 79 F. 3; Gamble v. San Diego, 79 F. 500; Deming v. Ins. Co., 78 F. 4; Gassman v. Jarvis, 100 F. 146; City of Muskegon v. Clark, 62 F. 698; Kittredge v. Race, 92 U.S. 116; Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 96 U.S. 588; Railroad v. Barton, 57 S.W. 292; Bank v. Bonney, 101 N.Y. 173, 4 N.E. 332; Litchfield v. Brooklyn, 34 N.Y.S. 1090; Checkley v. Steamship Co., 60 How. Pr. 511; Wurtz v. Hart, 13 Iowa 518; Hampton's Heirs v. Barrett, 12 La. 159; Caine v. Railroad, 41 P. 904; Oneida Bank v. Herrenden (N. Y.), 4 N.E. 332; Hill v. Hill, 28 S.E. 301; McJilton v. Love (Ill.), 54 Am. Dec. 449; Davis v. Morton Galt & Co. (Ky.), 96 Am. Dec. 309; Kirkpatrick v. Railroad (Neb.), 41 Am. St. Rep. 757, 57 N.W. 664; Allen v. Watt, 69 Ill. 655; Burgeois v. Jacobs (45 La. Ann.), 14 So. 68; State v. Railroad (La.), 7 So. 84; Mix v. Creditors (La.), 2 So. 391; Mitchell v. Bunce, 2 Paige 620; Burrows v. Miller, 5 How. Pr. 51; Cook v. Litchfield, 5 Sandf. 330; Hollister v. Stewart, 19 N. E. (N. Y.) 782; Bank v. Bonney, 101 N.Y. 173, 4 N.E. 332; Lowry v. Hall, 2 Watts & S. 129, 37 Am. Dec. 495; Davis v. Morton, 4 Bush 442, 96 Am. Dec. 309; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. St. 326, 84 Am. Dec. 448; Lockwood v. Nye, 2 Swan 515, 58 Am. Dec. 73; McJilton v. Love, 13 Ill. 486, 54 Am. Dec. 449; State v. Boyce, 72 Md. 140, 20 Am. St. Rep. 458; Beyersdorf v. Sump, 39 Minn. 495, 12 Am. St. Rep. 678; Mandeville v. Avery, 127 N.Y. 376, 21 Am. St. Rep. 678; Phelps v. Railroad, 37 Minn. 485, 5 Am. St. Rep. 867; 1 Ency. Pl. & Prac. 764; State ex rel. v. Dougherty, 45 Mo. 294. (3) There is no conflict of jurisdiction in this case. Beach on Receivers, sec. 468; Pringle v. Woolworth, 90 N.Y. 502; Cooper v. Newell, 173 U.S. 555; 5 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 465 and 467; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U.S. 148; Railroad v. Howard, 74 U.S. 392; Story, Eq. Juris. (9 Ed.), sec. 1252; Mumma v. Potomac Co., 8 Pet. 286; Wood v. Dummer, 3 Mass. 308; Vose v. Grant, 15 Mass. 522; Spear v. Grant, 16 Mass. 14; Trust Co. v. Railroad, 174 U.S. 674; Trust Co. v. Railroad, 101 F. 632; 1 Thomp. on Corp., 332, 333; Alexander v. Rolfe, 74 Mo. 495; Robinson v. Lane, 49 Ga. 357; Linn v. Robertson, 6 Wall. 277; Powell v. Railroad, 42 Mo. 63; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 116 Ill. 170; Hastings v. Drew, 50 How. Pr. 254, 76 N.Y. 9; Bartlett v. Drew, 57 N.Y. 587; Howe v. Robinson, 20 Fla. 352; National Trust Co. v. Miller, 33 N.J.Eq. 155; Shield v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 324. It has been frequently held that the assets of the old corporation in the hands of a new corporation may be subjected in equity to the debts of the old corporation where the transfer is so made as to recognize the interest and rights of the stockholders of the transferrer to the exclusion of the general creditors, such a transfer being treated and held as in effect hindering and delaying the general creditors in the collection of their debts, and therefore fraudulent. Blair v. Railroad, 22 F. 36; Livingston Co. Agricultural Soc. v. Hunter, 110 Ill. 155; Marshall v. Railroad, 92 N. Car. 322; Von Glahn v. De Rossett, 81 N. Car. 467; Railroad v. Rollins, 82 N. Car. 523; Dobson v. Simonson, 86 N. Car. 492; Vose v. Cowdrey, 49 N.Y. 336; Georgia Ice Co. v. Porter, 70 Ga. 637; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. Transp. Co., 13 F. 516; Railroad v. Evans, 6 Heisk. (Tenn.) 607; Slattery v. Transp. Co., 91 Mo. 227; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 10 F. 596; Railroad v. Dienelt, 133 Pa. St. 585; Dean v. Lead Co., 59 Mo. 524; Reading v. Wedder, 66 Ill. 80; Evans v. Railroad, 106 Mo. 594; Lindell v. Benton, 6 Mo. 361; Railroad v. Musselman, 2 Grant's Cases 348; Railroad v. Evans, 6 Heisk. 607; Shackelford v. Railroad, 52 Miss. 159; Wood on Railway Law, p. 1683; Wait on Insolvent Corporations, sec. 448. (4) Respondents insist that there are but two real points of controversy in the case. They are: (a) did plaintiffs, as the attorneys of the defendant, render the legal services sued for? And (b) what was their value? The elements to be considered in estimating the value of legal services have been collected and enumerated in a recent decision of the ...