Anderson v. Watson

Oeeutt, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants in this case are coal.miners who have severally at various times, between October, 1902, and October, 1917, been employed by the Consolidation Coal Company in its. coal mine Ho. 3 at Hoffman, Allegany County, Maryland, in cutting, mining, and loading coal. For their labor each miner was paid according to the quantity of coal mined by him, which was ascertained by weighing the cars containing the coal so mined, which was loaded into them as it was mined, on scales operated by the Consolidation Coal Company. The complainants allege that the scales so operated by the coal company were inaccurate, and that as a result of their inaccuracy they were credited with and paid for less, coal than they actually mined.

That condition, they say, existed continuously between the dates to which we have referred, .and they further say that the Consolidation Coal Company has in its possession records showing the quantity of coal mined by each of the complainants, and that the information contained in these records, which is essential to the ascertain ²²¹ ment of the loss suffered by each of the complainants as a result of the inaccurate scales, cannot be obtained by them from any other source. They therefore demanded of the coal company that it discover the information contained .in said records, showing the amount of coal respectively mined by each of the complainants, and that it account to each of them for the compensation withheld from them and retained by the company, being the sum due them for the difference between the amount of coal credited to them in accordance with the registration of the inaccurate scales, and the amount of coal actually mined by them, and they accordingly filed in the Circuit Court for Allegany County a bill of complaint against the Consolidation Coal Company, certain employees and former employees of that company, and certain other miners who were employed at the mine during the period referred to and who were all affected in the same way by the error complained of by the appellants, asking for such discovery and accounting, and who have the same interests in the object of the suit. A demurrer to that bill of complaint was interposed and sustained, and an amended bill of complaint filed, to which certain of the defendants also demurred, and that demurrer was likewise sustained, and the complainants having indicated that they did not desire to make further amendments, the bill of complaint was dismissed, and from that decree this appeal was taken. In the amended bill of complaint, which is the only one which we are required to consider, it is alleged that the plaintiffs are residents of Allegany County and bring the suit on behalf of all others having a common interest with them in its object; that certain of the defendants are sued as employees and former employees, weighmasters and servants of the defendant; that other defendants are .sued as parties having an interest in the object of the suit, who have declined to join with them as parties plaintiff; and that the Consolidation Coal Company is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Maryland. ²²² That the plaintiffs have respectively been employed as miners at various times and for varying periods between the first day of October, A. D. 1902, and the ninth day of October, A. 'D. 1917, by the Consolidation Coal Company, to which for convenience we will hereafter refer as the coal company, at its mine Ho. 3 at Hoffman, in cutting, mining and loading coal upon mining cars, and that the coal so mined was delivered by the coal company over its own mining tracks in its mining oars to and weighed upon its own mine scales, and “that thereafter such coal was dumped from such cars into railroad cars for shipment by rail to purchasers of such coal, or in wagons for delivery to local purchasers of such coal; and records of the purchasers of such coal, and of the weight of coal sold and delivered to them, to which records the plaintiffs have not, nor have had access, were solely kept by the defendant company”; that such work was performed entirely within the mine at- a considerable distance from its principal entrance, in most cases extending a mile or more, and that the coal company required all miners employed in the mine on each working day to go directly to the place of labor assigned them, and remain there during their respective periods of labor.

That as the plaintiffs respectively loaded the mine cars they attached thereto a. “check” as a claim for credit from said employer for compensation for services rendered by them in mining, cutting and loading the coal on such car, which compensation was based upon the weight of the coal thus loaded; and that thereafter the company removed said cars from the place of loading out of the mine and over the platform of certain mine scales where they were weighed by one of the coal company’s weighmasters, who in each case, as he weighed the car, detached from it the miner’s check and, upon a sheet provided by the defendant company, entered the serial number of the car and the weight of the coal found therein, as, shown by the scales to the credit of the name or check number of the miner who had loaded the same within ²²³ said mine, and that, when these ears were removed from the mine, the miner wlu> had loaded them had no further opportunity of seeing them or of knowing whether or not tho weight credited to the miner whose check was attached to the car being* weighed was correct. That the record made by the weighmaster, showing the amount of coal credited to each of the plaintiffs and the serial number of the mine car in which such coal had been delivered ro the scales was transmitted to the office of the defendant company, and a memorandum thereof posted in the weighing house, hut no copy given to any of the miners; and that from such record the coal company computed and reported to the miners the weight of coal credited to them for the period covered by the report, and the earnings computed thereon, and paid them from time to time at the several rates from time to time agreed upon between them, and that that report and payment constituted all the accounting, notice or information furnished or available to such miners. That the scales on which the cars of coal were weighed were provided with a large platform upon which was laid a short length of track over which the loaded mine ears passed. That such scales were kept in very bad adjustment and condition by the coal company, so that the ratio of balance of the scales became altered from the established ratio of design of said scales, and the counterpoise weights designed for use upon the scales became erronesous, so that they falsified the balance of such scales in such a way that they indicated one hundred and eleven pounds less than the actual and true weight of coal loaded upon and weighed within each car, and that in balancing' the said scales each day the coal company’s weighmasters removed from its; place upon the balance beam of said scales tho counterpoise hanger, and, after balancing the remaining parts of said scales, restored it to its place and used it while coal was being loaded, thereby causing the scales to weigh each mine carload of coal 620 pounds less than its actual weight, the counterpoise hanger preventing ²²⁴ the weight of coal to the amount of 620 pounds from appearing in the operation of weighing coal upon said scales.

That the plaintiffs had no means of verifying or disproving the correctness of the scales, or the operation of the same and were informed, upon application to the State Mine Inspector, whose duty it was to test said scales, that he had officially tested the scales and had found no error in them, and that the plaintiffs had no means of ascertaining such weights or of keeping accounts thereof for themselves, and trusted to the fairness of their employer and accepted the accounts furnished them as correctly stating the weight and compensation to which they were entitled. That in such reliance, having no opportunity to procure complete data, they kept no record for themselves of the number of mine cars loaded by themselves respectively, and they had no information or notice at any time which showed them that the scales were incorrect or had been tampered with until August 21st, 1917. That at that time the United States Bureau of Standards examined the mine scales and the conditions of weighing and accounting for coal at such mine and, on October 9th, 1917, the said bureau made a second examination of the scales and discovered as a result of these examinations the improper balancing of the scales and the use of incorrect weights to which we have referred, and that as a result the coal company was indicted for unlawfully neglecting to provide accurate scales upon which to weigh coal at said mine on the 21st day of August, 1917, to which indictment it pleaded guilty. The bill then alleges, “that since this fraudulent balancing of the scales and fraudulent use and employment of false weights by said defendant company described in paragraphs eight and nine hereof, became known to them as described in the eleventh paragraph hereof, it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, that such fraud as so' described began many years before the date and time of its discovery and publication, to wit, before the 9th day of October, A. D. 1917, ²²⁵ and continued without interruption from the first day of October, A. D. 1902 to the 9th day of October, A. D. 1917, the day of the ascertainment of the existence and imposition of such fraud upon the miners by the defendant company, made by the representatives of the United States Bureau of Standards, as above set forth. . “That as a result of the use of the fraudulent and false weights hereinbefore described, and the improper and fraudulent balancing of the mine scales hereinbefore mentioned, the defendant company fraudulently failed to record and to credit upon each and every mine carload of coal mined and delivered to it by the miners, including the plaintiffs, a weight-in no instance less than six hundred and twenty (620) pounds, and frequently and usually a weight in -excess of seven hundred and thirteen pounds, of coal mined, cut, loaded and delivered to said defendant by said miners in said mine, for which said defendant company should have accounted and upon which said defendant company should have computed and paid said miners respectively the compensation agreed between them; but by this fraudulent concealment as herein-before set forth, said defendant company, through the operation of said scales^, did not show, record, credit, compute nor pay, hut retained the compensation so duo said miners and still retains the same.” It then states that the accounting of the mining operations is very complex, involving many transactions extending over a. term of more than fifteen years, and including many different rates of compensation at various times computed, and the ascertainment of the smn due involves an examination into the number of mine cars loaded by and the weight of coal credited to 1he plaintiffs and “into the weight of coal sold and delivered by iho defendant company, with comparisons through which the truth may he ascertained, and the amount justly due the miners, including these plaintiffs,” he computed.

Upon these allegations- the complainants asked for the following relief: ²²⁶ 1st. That the coal company be required to produce its books of accounts and records showing the coal accounted for as mined by, and the compensation paid thereon to, the miners employed at said mine during the period referred to, “and of coal sold and delivered to purchasers of coal from said mine by said defendant company between the same dates; and that it produce especially the records showing the weight of coal so sold and delivered, upon every day and year between the dates above mentioned, accounting for all and every mine carload of such coal as dumped from said mine, and that it produce especially the records showing the weight of such coal accounted for and paid for to such miners, upon every day and year between the dates above mentioned, and of all mine cars loaded within such mine by such miners, and all books, accounts, records, correspondence, memoranda or other data it has or can obtain which may throw light upon these transactions.” And 2nd, that the coal company be required to account to the plaintiffs for the amount of compensation earned by them which upon an examination of such accounts and records may appear to be justly due to them and to have been withheld from them by a failure to fully account and remit therefor. The coal company demurred to the bill of complaint on the following grounds: 1. Because the bill failed to show any grounds for equitable relief; 2.

Because it was multifarious; 3. Because there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs; 4. Because there was a misjoinder of defendants; 5. Because there was an adequate remedy at law; 6.

That the relief prayed for was barred by laches and limitations; 7. Because the bill was indefinite, confusing, misleading and contradictory; and 8. Because of a want of jurisdiction in a court of equity to entertain the suit. The same objection were also raised by certain employees and former employees of the coal company, who were made parties defendant. ²²⁷ It appears from what has been said that, the questions with which we are required to deal are purely legal, since the demurrer, for the purposes of this opinion, concedes the truth of all facts properly pleaded in the hill of complaint, and that the main and controlling questions aré these: 1st.

Are the facts stated in the bill, if true, sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to relief in equity. 2nd. Is there a misjoinder of parties plaintiff or defendant. We must assume that from 1902 to 1917 the coal company, in operating its Hoffman mine No. 3, employed the appellants to mine coal under contracts which provided that they should be compensated for such labor according to the quantity of coal respectively mined by them; that the coal was weighed, out of the presence of the miners, on scales and instrumentalities owned and exclusively controlled by the coal company and operated by its agents and employees; that its situation in relation to its employees in the operation of weighing the coal mined by them, which measured the compensation which by its contract it was to pay them, was such as to impose upon it the duty of using the highest degree of care and diligence to see that the scales used to determine the weight of the coal so mined were, when so used, accurate; that notwithstanding that obligation, the scales, as operated by the- agents of the company employed by it for that purpose, were so false and inaccurate that for a continuous period of fifteen years they indicated that each car of coal mined by the appellants weighed at least 620 pounds less than its actual weight, and that that practice only terminated when the company was indicted for and pleaded guilty to a charge of violating a statute which required the company to maintain accurate scales for weighing the coal mined by its employees, and that its employees then knew for the first time that the scales were false and inaccurate, and that the inaccuracy of the scales was discovered through inspecting them on two occasions in 1917; that as a result of these errors, the miners were, over a period of fifteen year’s wrongfully deprived of compensation ²²⁸ clue them for at least 620 pounds in every mine carload of coal mined by them, which compensation was and still is retained by the company, although it had pleaded guilty to operating inaccurate scales in this mine on the occasion referred to in 1917; and further, that the coal so mined and weighed was dumped into' cars and wagons and sold by the company and records kept of the weight of the coal so sold; and that although-the scales were inaccurate, the State Mine Inspector had tested them during the period referred to and had approved them as accurate and thereby aided in misleading the appellants into a belief in their accuracy. Whether these facts are really true, or whether they can be supported by proof, are questions not now before us, since we are dealing only with a “case stated,” in which we must assume that all facts stated which are relevant and material to the issue are true, and whether such facts actually exist or not is not involved in this inquiry.

So regarded, the facts to which we have adverted compel one of two conclusions, either that the company, in failing to discover over SO' long a period so striking an inaccuracy in its scales was guilty of negligence so gross that fraud may be inferred from it (Wilson v. York and Md. R. R. Co., 11 G. & J. 58 ), or that the company actually knew and intended the scales to be inaccurate. And in arriving at this conclusion we do not infer any guilty knowledge or fraudulent' intent from the fact that the company in 1917 pleaded guilty to the charge of operating inaccurate scales at the mine, since such knowledge or intent are not necessary ingredients of the crime created by the statute, but we are affected rather by the conviction that any person who for so long a period, by means of instrumentalities and agencies within his exclusive control, wrongfully deprives another of money, credit or property under the circumstances of this case, must at least, in the first instance, be presumed to have known and intended the consequences of his acts. We cannot assume, as we are asked to do by the coal com-, party’s demurrer, that for fifteen years that company con ²²⁹ tinuously withheld from its employees, without their knowledge or consent, by means of false weights, agencies, and instrumentalities in its exclusive control, compensation justly due them, to its gain and their loss, without assuming also that it knew’ and intended to do what it did. On