FOURTH NATIONAL BANK v. STOUT & Others

FOURTH NATIONAL BANK v. STOUT & Others. APPEAL EKOM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOE ' THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. Submitted January 12, 1885. — Decided March 16, 1885. When separate creditors unite in a suit in equity, each claiming Ms proportionate share of property of the common debtor in respondent’s hands, and each recovers a separate decree for his pro rata share, the jurisdiction of this court, on appeal, is, as to each creditor’s appeal, to be determined by the. amount in dispute in his case. This was a suit in equity begun by Stout, Mills & Co., judgment creditors of the-Yeager Milling Company, to recover from the Fourth National Bank their pro rata share of certain property of the debtor company which was in the hands of the bank. The bank claimed a superior right to the property, and denied its liability to account to creditors therefor. The only questions' in the case, as made by the bill, were: (1) whether the bank held the property, or the proceeds thereof, in trust for the creditors of the company; and if so (2) what was the pro rata share of the complainants. No decree was asked for any more than this share. The bank in its answer did not seek affirmative relief. Upon the hearing, the court found that the bank did hold certain property in trust for the creditors, and sent the case to a master to ascertain the share of the complainants therein. In the interlocutory decree to this-effect, leave was given other creditors to intervene pro interest suo for the recovery of their respective pro rata shares of the trust property. Upon the coming in of the master’s report a final decree was entered— ■ “That the said complainants, and the several intervenors severally have and recover ofdefendant, the. Fourth National Bank of St. Louis, ..the- several sums hereinafter stated, being the several pro rata shares, as ascertained by the said report of the special master pro, hao vice; in the assets of the Yeager Milling Company, heretofore -found by the interlocutory decree herein of October 30, 1882, to have been wrongfully appropriated by said Fourth National Bank, as follows: Stout, Mills & Temple................. $3,591 32 Kidder, Peabody & Co.................. 2,658 72 R. Hunter, Craig & Co......./......... 1,072 26 Anton Kufike......................... 749 66 Merchants’Bank of Canada.............. 39123 The First National Bank of Chicago..... 527 41 $8,990 60 And to have each his several execution therefor, with his costs.” The bill was also dismissed as to all the- defendants except the bank, and as to the bank except to the extent of the decree in favor of the several creditors as above, such dismissal being “ without prejudice to any claims or rights and claims of any defendant as against each other connected with the matters set forth in the master’s report.” From this decree the bank appealed, and the appellees, the several creditors in whose favor the decree was rendered, moved to dismiss, because'the value of the matter in dispute between the bank and the several appellees does not exceed $5,000. Mr. B. D. Lee for appellant. — The complainant admits an indebtedness from the company to the bank of $120,000, and the proof shows one. still greater. The accounting on which the decree is based undertakes to settle this question forever, and the decree from which the appeal is taken confirms that report and settles and adjusts the rights of all the parties. The cases cited by respondents in their brief, in support of their motion to dismiss, are not applicable to this case. In the case of Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188, complainants claimed that the whole fund arising from the sale of the attached property had been obtained, by the defendant, by fraud, and that-the defendant had no legal or equitable right to hold the same as against the complainants; whereas in the case at bar, the bill of- complaint proceeds upon the theory that the fund appropriated by appellant, was one in which all the creditors, including the appellant, had a common right, and tenders an issue which- made it absolutely necessary that the affirmative rights of appellant, as against the milling company and the other defendants, should be determined. And appellant cannot be denied its right of appeal because the court below saw fit, after the adjustment of these rights, to dismiss the suit as to all of the other defendants. The appellant’s rights having been raised by the bill, cannot be taken away from it by a dismissal as to the other defendants in a case where the decree in its entirety reaches beyond the mere adjustment of complainants’ demand. • Mr. Frederick N. Judson and Mr. John H. Overall for appellees. [MAJORITY — Me. Chief Justice "Waite] Me. Chief Justice "Waite delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts in the foregoing language, and continued: The motion is granted on the authority of Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208, and Schwed v. Smith, 106 U. S. 188. The appellees have separate and distinct decrees in their favor depending on separate and distinct claims. If none of the other creditors had intervened, and the decree had been rendered in' favor of Stout, Mills & Temple alone upon their bill as filed, in which they sought to recover only their pro rata share of the assets of their debtor in the hands of the bank, it certainly could not be claimed that an appeal would lie if their recovery was for less than $5,000. The suit was instituted, not for the whole property in the hands of the bank, but only for the complainants’ pro rata share. After the suit was begun the intervening creditors were allowed to come in each for his separate share of the' assets. On their intervention the case stood precisely as it U’ould if each creditor had brought a separate suit for his separate share of the fund. The decree in favor of the several creditors has precisely the same effect, for the -purposes of an appeal, that it would have had; if rendered in such separate suits. Since the bill was dismissed as to the other parts of case without prejudice to the rights of the defendants among themselves, the report of the master is binding on the parties only so far as it fixes the' amounts due the several appellees. In its effect the decree binds no one except the parties to the appeal in respect to the right of the several appellees tó their recovery Dismissed.