Wilmer v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Coal Company), alleging that in January, 1900, Cumberland Dugan, Cias attorney in fact for all the Dugan heirs,” executed to it a lease of certain tracts of coal lands in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, a copy of which was filed with the bill; that Philip N. Nicholas, a lunatic, was, at the time of the filing of the bill, entitled, “by reason of his being heir at law of his brother, C. D. Nicholas, one of the said Dugan heirs;, who died intestate on the 23rd of April, 1913, to a one-seventyseeond share of the royalties due under such lease from the first day of July to the 30th day of November, 1913, such royalties amounting to $49.93 and accruing under the” said lease; that Edwin M. Wilmer claims to be substituted trustee of the trust estate under the will of Jane H. Nicholas, and ⁶⁰² that the Baltimore Trust Company, a body corporate of the State of Maryland (hereinafter called the Trust Company), to be substituted committee of Philip. N. Nicholas; that the said Edwin M. Wilmer (hereinafter referred to as the Trastee) “has demanded and claims that the amount now due under the said lease shall be paid to him” as Trustee, as appears from his letters filed with the bill as a part thereof, and that the Trust Company has likewise demanded and “claims the same shall be paid to it” as Committee of Philip N. Nicholas, as shown by its letter also, filed as a part of the bill; that the plaintiff was unable to decide between said conflicting claimants, and while it was ready and anxious to pay the amount appearing to be due from it to Philip. N. Nicholas” ; as royalties for the time specified, and as the same shall accrue from time to. time, to and for the use of the one really entitled,” it could not safely make any payment on account, thereof, or recognize either of the confiicting claims until the questions involved therein are settled “by some Court of competent jurisdiction”;, that while neither of said claimants, had instituted suit against the plaintiff for the recovery of said amount now due, yet the plaintiff was apprehensive of' suits by .them; that the plaintiff had no claim or interest, whatever in the said royalties, and that it desired and thereby offered to pay the same into Court.

The bill then prayed that the Trustee and Trust Company be required to inter-plead and adjust their said demands; that they and their attorneys, etc., bé restrained from commencing or prosecuting-any action or actions at law in respect to said demands, and for further relief, and there was attached to the bill an affidavit that the matters contained in the bill were trae as al- • leged, and that the bill was not filed by the plaintiff in collusion with either of the defendants, but of its own accord for relief, etc. The lease inferred to and filed with the bill, which is dated January 1st, 1900, and purports to have been executed and. acknowledged by a number of persons, including Edwin M. Wilmer, Cumberland D. Nicholas, By his attorney in ⁶⁰³ fact, and George O. Nicholas, committee of the estate of Philip N. Nicholas, by his attorney in fact, granted to the plaintiff, the Coal Company, the exclusive right of digging, mining, carrying away, etc., coal in and from certain tracts of land in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, in which the grantors or lessors owned certain interests, for the term of fifteen years, ending on the 31st of December, 1913, in consideration of the covenants therein on the part of the Coal Company and the payment, monthly, of specified amounts per ton for each and every ton of coal mined and shipped by the Goal Company. The first of the letters from the Trustee to the plaintiff, Hied with the hill and dated July 12th, 1913, after notifying the plaintiff that by a decree of Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, George O. Nicholas, surviving Trustee of Philip N. Nicholas under the will of Jane IT. Nicholas, deceased, had been removed and that he had been appointed Trustee in his place, continues as follows: “All the coal land interests covered by the estate of Philip N. Nicholas are a part of the above trust estate, and demand therefor will be made by me as Trustee for all monthly revenues accruing front said coal land interests. I beg leave to suggest that you hold any revenue now due, pending my sending you a certified copy of the decree of Court.” The second letter notified the Coal Company that he had qualified as Trustee, and that he had exhibited to the attorney for the Coal Company in Baltimore a list of the property of said trust estate and submitted to them his right to demand and receive the revenue from the coal land interests in Pennsylvania, and the third letter stated that he had been waiting patiently for a settlement of “the money due the trust estate of Jane II.

Nicholas for the benefit of Philip N. Nicholas on account of vested interests in the Dugan tracts of coal lands in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania” ; that under the advice of his. attorney he had declined to enter into any agreement with the committee of Philip N. Nicholas, and requested the plaintiff to “promptly” remit amounts, due the said trust estate. The letter referred ⁶⁰⁴ to in the bill as containing the demand of the Trust Company was from its attorney, and was dated December llth. 1913. It states, “we hereby make demand on you for one-third of the rentals of certain coal lands in Pennsylvania held by you for P. N. Nicholas. As you know, the Baltimore Trust Company is committee for Nicholas, who has been adjudged a lunatic, and as such committee is entitled to this proportion.

This matter has been held up for some time and we must therefore insist upon immediate payment.” The Court below passed an order requiring the defendants to answer the bill, and the plaintiff to pay the $49.93 into Court, and ordered an injunction to issue as prayed. The Trust Company filed its answer, admitting the allegations of the bill and consenting to the relief prayed. The Trustee filed his answer on the 24th of January, 1914, in which he denies the allegations of the first paragraph of the bill. In reply to the second paragraph of the bill, the answer says “that he admits that Philip Norbourne Nicholas is an heir at law of his brother, O. D'.

Nicholas; that C. D. Nicholas died intestate”; that the respondent “believes that said Philip Norbourne Nicholas is entitled as the heir at law of his brother to a one-seventy-second share of certain coal lands in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania,” but that he denies that Philip Norbourne Nicholas is a lunatic, and also denies all the other allegations, of said paragraph. In answer to the third paragraph of the bill he claims to be the Trustee of the trust estate under the will of Jane IT. Nicholas of the life estate'of' Philip N. Nicholas, but he denies that the Trust Company is the substituted Committee of Philip N. Nicholas,’ and avers that the proceedings under which the Trust Company “claims its committeeship” are void. In reference to the fourth paragraph he admits sending the letters referred to, but neither admits nor denies the alleged demand of the Trust Company, and denies all other allegations of the fourth paragraph.

ITe admits “that the questions involved in the bill” should.be settled by some Court of competent jurisdiction, but denies the other averments of the fifth paragraph ⁶⁰⁵ of the hill. In answer to the sixth paragraph he admits that he has not instituted any suit against the plaintiff, and says he has no knowledge of any suit by the Trust Company, and that he denies the other allegations of the sixth paragraph. He neither admits nor denies the averments of the seventh paragraph, hut calls on the plaintiff for full proof. With his answer the Trustee filed a cross-hill against the Coal Company and the Trust Company, in which, after setting out the proceedings in this case, he alleges that he is the duly substituted Trastee under the will of Jane H. Nicholas,, hy an order of Circuit Court No. 2 of Baltimore City, which authorized him to' prosecute suits for the recovery of any property due and belonging to tbe trust estate; that Jane II..

Nicholas was at tbc time of ber death the owner of an interest in the coal lands referred to; that hy her will her property was divided into six equal parts, and that one of said parts devolved upon him as Trustee for the benefit of Philip N. Nicholas, who is still living, during his natural life; that, he held said interest in the coal lands as tenant in common with others, and that the land was mined hy the Coal Company without any agreement with him or his predecessor; that the Coal Company had committed other trespasses on said land, and that the acts of the Coal Company in mining under the authority of the lease referred to and committing other trespasses on said land were “a.cts of disseisor against” Mm; that the Coal Company has mined large quantities of coal on said land for which it has never accounted to the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to such an accounting; that the Trust Company claims the fund to he paid into Court hy virtue “of its alleged committeeship”; that the Trust Company is not the Committee for Philip N. Nicholas, that the proceedings under which it was appointed are void, and that the Trust Company, “under color of its alleged committee-ship, has wrongfully received and accepted money due” to him as Trustee. The prayer of the cross-hill is that the Coal Company may he required to account to the Trustee for his interest in all coal, etc., taken hy it from said lands; that it ⁶⁰⁶ may- be enjoined from further trespassing thereon, and that it may be adjudged to pay to the Trustee such damages as may have been sustained by reason of its wrongful acts; that the lunacy proceedings under which the Trust Company claims to have been appointed Committee may be declared void, and that it may be required to account to the Trustee for all moneys wrongfully received by it, etc. The bill of interpleader and the answers thereto were submitted on the bill and answers, and the Court on the 27th of March, 1914, passed an order requiring the Trustee and the Trust Company to interplead their respective claims, etc. On the same day the Court sustained the demurrers of the Coal Company and Trust Company to the cross-bill, and dismissed the cross-bill without prejudice to the Trustee to “avail himself of such remedies as he might otherwise be entitled to.” Prom these orders the Trastee has appealed. In 3 Pomeroy's Equity (2nd Ed.), sec. 1320, the author says: “When two or more persons, whose titles are connected by reason of one being derived from the other, or both being derived from a common source, claim the same thing, debt or duty, by different or separate interests, from a third, and he, not knowing to which of the claimants he ought of right to render the right or duty, or to deliver the thing, fears he may be hurt by some of them, he may maintain a suit and obtain against them the remedy of interpleader. * * * The object of the suit is, that the conflicting claimants shall litigate the matter among themselves, without involving the stake-holder