United States v. Eisenbeis

• Decision Date: 07 October 1901
• Docket Number: 691.
• Citation: 112 F. 190
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. EISENBEIS et al. LONG et al. v. EISENBEIS et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

112 F. 190

UNITED STATES v. EISENBEIS et al.

LONG et al. v. EISENBEIS et al.

No. 691.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 7, 1901

A. R Coleman and Wm. H. Brinker, for plaintiffs in error.

Allen Weir, T. J. Humes, A. W. Buddress, and L. S. B. Sawyer, for defendants in error.

The writ of error herein brings before this court the proceedings had in the case of the United States against Eisenbeis et al in the United States district court in and for the district of Washington, and also certain proceedings had in the state court in Jefferson county, state of Washington, in the suit of Charles Eisenbeis and Kate Eisenbeis, plaintiffs in error herein, against B. M. Long, Clementine Long, and Francis L Bash, defendants in error herein. The facts relating to these suits, brought in different jurisdictions, are as follows: On February 4, 1898, the United States brought suit against Eisenbeis et al. (including many individuals and corporations) to condemn and appropriate to the use of the government, for fortification purposes, a large quantity of land at Ft. Wilson, Jefferson county, Wash., including 84.61 acres of vacant and unoccupied land specially involved herein, the legal title to which was in Charles Eisenbeis, but in which the defendants in error Long et al. claimed an undivided one-half interest. Process in this action was served on Bash, Eisenbeis, and wife on February 7, 1898. Long and wife voluntarily appeared in the action on March 16, 1898. In due time the case came up for trial before a jury, and a verdict was rendered assessing the compensation and damages to the owners of the 84.61 acres of land at $18,900; and, in pursuance of a decree regularly entered, that amount was paid into the registry of the court for the owners, and the land was taken and appropriated by the United States government. There being no controversy as to the ownership of Eisenbeis and his wife as to one-half of said money, that amount was thereafter, on their motion, paid over to them. The remaining one-half was claimed on one side by Eisenbeis and wife, plaintiffs in error herein, and on the other by B. M. Long, Clementine Long, and Francis L. Bash, defendants in error herein. In 1893 the defendants in error herein brought suit in the state superior court of Jefferson county, Wash., against the plaintiffs in error herein and Henry Bash and Susan W. Bash, to recover one-half of certain lands embraced in the condemnation proceedings. In that suit it was alleged in the complaint that Henry Bash and Eisenbeis had entered into a written agreement, by the terms of which they were to acquire said lands (not including the said 84.61 acres), and plat them into town lots, sell them, and out of the proceeds repay to Eisenbeis the purchase price of said lands, which he was to advance, and all expenses of platting and selling the same, and divide the profits equally between them. It was further alleged in the complaint that by a subsequent oral agreement it was agreed between Bash and Eisenbeis that the 84.61 acres should be purchased, platted, and sold, and the proceeds divided under and in accordance with the written agreement. The written agreement was admitted by Eisenbeis; but he denied that there had every been any such oral agreement as alleged in the complaint, or any oral agreement for the acquisition of 84.61 acres for Bash or Eisenbeis at all. The cause was tried and a final decree rendered on November 1, 1895, finding the written agreement to have been made, and adjudicating the rights of the parties under it, and dividing the money on hand and the unsold lots and blocks covered by it accordingly; but there was no finding or decree whatever concerning the oral agreement, or concerning the 84.61 acres of land. That decree was never appealed from, reversed, set aside, or in any way modified or affected. On February 7, 1898, three days after the condemnation proceedings had been filed in the United States court, the defendants in error herein filed in the state superior court of Jefferson county, Wash., a complaint against the plaintiffs in error herein, based upon the same written agreement between Henry Bash and Eisenbeis, and the same alleged oral agreement modifying and extending said written agreement so as to cover and include the 84.61-acre tract of land, and claiming an undivided one-half interest therein. Process in this suit was served on Eisenbeis and wife February 7, 1898. They appeared and set up the former decree in the state court between the same parties as a plea in bar. To this plea the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was overruled by the court. The plaintiff there upon appealed to the supreme court of Washington, which reversed the judgment of the lower court, holding that nothing was concluded by the former judgment except such facts as were set out in the judgment itself.

Long v. Eisenbeis, 21 Wash. 23, 56 P. 933. The cause was returned to the court below, and the plaintiffs then filed an amended and supplemental complaint in which they set forth their original complaint, and attached as exhibits the findings, judgment, and decree in the former suit, in which judgment was rendered November 1, 1895, and also alleged the pendency of the suit in the United States district court to condemn the land, and that the land had been condemned and the money paid into court, and that that court would abide the judgment of said superior court, and pay out the money accordingly, and prayed for a decree that the plaintiffs were the owners of an undivided one-half interest in the land at the commencement of that suit, and that they were the owners of said fund in the registry of said United States court. The parties to the last-mentioned suit were the same parties as in the suit resulting in the judgment of November 1, 1895. The land sued for was a part of the same land sued for in the said former suit. The cause of action was the same, based upon the identical agreements by Bash as in the former suit. The custodian of the fund in the federal court was not made a party; nor was any one made a party who had any control whatever over that fund, or against whom any judgment or decree concerning said fund could be enforced. To this amended and supplemental complaint Eisenbeis demurred on various grounds: (1) That the amended and supplemental complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action: (2) that there was a defect of parties defendant; (3) that the state court had no jurisdiction of the cause. The demurrer was overruled, and on December 5, 1899, final judgment was rendered for plaintiffs as prayed, and defendants appealed to the supreme court of the state, where the judgment was affirmed. This judgment, with reference to the matter here in dispute, reads as follows: 'The remaining one-half of said money for said land, to wit, the sum of nine thousand one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seventy cents ($9,159.70), is still in the said United States district court in said condemnation suit, and that said remaining sum of nine thousand one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seventy cents ($9,159.70) has taken the place of and represents the said undivided half interest in and to said eighty-four and 61/100 acres of land herein described of these plaintiffs, B. M. Long, Clementine Long, his wife, and Francis L. Bash, and that the said defendants Charles Eisenbeis and Kate Eisenbeis, his wife, have no right, title, interest, or claim in or to said remaining sum of nine thousand one hundred and fifty-nine dollard and seventy cents ($9,159.70), nor to any part thereof, and that these plaintiffs are theabsolute owners thereof, and entitled to all of said remaining sum in the said district court. ' Afterward Long et al., defendants in error herein, came into the United States district court, and filed their petition praying that said fund by paid to them, as the owners thereof, and attached to their petition copies of said amended and supplemental complaint, and of the judgment of the superior court in Jefferson county, Wash., rendered November 1, 1895, and also the judgment of the same court rendered December 5, 1899, and the opinion of the supreme court of the state affirming said last-mentioned judgment. To this petition the plaintiffs in error Eisenbeis and wife filed their answer, claiming said fund, and praying judgment of the superior court of Jefferson county, Wash., rendered on November 1, 1895, as a bar to the claim of the petitioners, Long et al. To this answer Long et al., petitioners (defendants in error), filed a general demurrer, which was sustained, and the answer held insufficient. Thereupon the court found that the petitioners were the owners of the fund in the registry of the court, and adjudged and decided that the same be paid to them. From this judgment and decree Eisenbeis and wife sued out a writ of error to this court.

Before GILBERT and ROSS,Circuit Judges, and HAWLEY, District Judge.

HAWLEY District Judge, after stating the facts as above, .

The arguments of counsel covered a wide range of legal principles, and innumerable authorities were cited by them in support of their respective views. The various assignments of error herein are based upon the action of the United States court in sustaining the demurrer to the answer of the plaintiffs in error, and raise the question as to the jurisdiction of the respective courts, national and state, in the various proceedings set forth in the statement of facts concerning the subject-matter of the controversy between the parties. The contention of the plaintiffs in error, as claimed by counsel, embodies the following propositions: (1) That the act of congress conferred jurisdiction upon the United States court to condemn land for governmental...