Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

66

Opinion of the Court.

property between themselves in accordance with their wishes.

It is the contention of Pelkes and his assignee that this partition of the property was in consideration of the release by Mrs. Mason to Pelkes of all of her interest in the shares of the stock of the Sunshine Mining Company. On the other hand, Mrs. Mason asserts that Pelkes was to hold one-half of the amount owned, 15,299 shares, in trust for her.

In August, 1934, Mrs. Mason instituted a suit in the District Court of Idaho for Shoshone County against Pelkes, Evelyn H. Treinies, the Sunshine Mining Company, and others not important here, alleging that she was the owner of 15,299 shares of the stock, that these had been acquired by Miss Treinies from Pelkes with knowledge of Mrs. Mason's rights, and praying that the trust be established and the stock and dividends be awarded to her, Mrs. Mason. It was finally decreed by the District Court on August 18, 1936, after an appeal to the Supreme Court or Idaho, that the stock and dividends belonged to Mrs. Mason. Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Idaho was refused by this Court.*

3

Before the entry of the first decree of the District Court of Idaho, Katherine Mason filed a petition in the Superior Court of Spokane County, Washington, in the probate proceedings involving Amelia Pelkes' will, to remove the executor, John Pelkes, for failure to file his report of distribution and for dissipation of the Sunshine stock. Pelkes by cross-petition and petition claimed the stock. Thereupon Mrs. Mason applied to the Supreme Court of Washington for a writ of prohibition against further proceedings in the Superior Court on the ground

'57 Idaho 10; 59 P. 2d 1087.

* Pelkes v. Mason, 299 U. S. 615.

Opinion of the Court.

308 U.S.

of lack of jurisdiction in that court to determine the controversy over the stock. The writ was refused. On May 31, 1935, a judgment was entered in the Superior Court upholding in full the ownership of Pelkes.

After the Supreme Court of Idaho had decided the Idaho suit against Pelkes and Miss Treinies, they filed in August, 1936, a suit in the Superior Court of Washington against Katherine Mason and others alleging that they were the owners of the stock, further alleging that the Idaho decree was invalid for lack of jurisdiction, and asking that their title to the stock be quieted and the Sunshine Mining Company, a party to this and the Idaho suit, be compelled to recognize their ownership. It was at this point in the litigation that the Sunshine Company filed the bill of interpleader now under consideration. Further proceedings in the suit to quiet title were enjoined by the District Court in this action.

Jurisdiction.-Before considering the questions raised by the petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the federal court under the Act of January 20, 1936,5 must be determined. As this issue affects the jurisdiction of this Court, it is raised on its own motion. By the Act of January 20, 1936, the district courts have jurisdiction of suits in equity, interpleading two or more adverse claimants, instituted by complainants who have property of the requisite value claimed by citizens of different states. The suit may be maintained "although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another." Process may run at least throughout all the states.

As required by the Act this case was begun by the complainant, a corporation of the State of Washington, im

* 49 Stat. 1096, 28 U. S. C. § 41 (26).

'Mansfield, C. & L. M. Ry. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 384.

66

Opinion of the Court.

pleading one group of claimants who are citizens of that same state and another, the adverse group, who are citizens of Idaho. Under the Interpleader Act, this identity of citizenship is permissible since diversity only between claimants is required. The Interpleader Act is based upon the clause of § 2, Article III, of the Constitution which extends the judical power of the United States to controversies "between citizens of different States." Is this grant of jurisdiction broad enough to cover the present situation?

The Judicial Code, § 24, provides for original jurisdiction of suits of a civil nature between citizens of different states in precisely the language of the Constitution. The present wording is practically the same as that of the Act of March 3, 1875," "the circuit courts . . . shall have original cognizance . . . of all suits . . . in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States," and that of the original Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789,8 "the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought and a citizen of another State." Without ruling as to possible limitations of the constitutional grant, it is held by this Court that the statutory language of the respective judiciary acts forbids suits in the federal courts unless all the parties on one side are of citizenship diverse to those on the other side. For the determination of the validity of the Interpleader Act we need not decide whether the words of the Constitution, "Controversies . . . between Citizens of different States," have a different meaning from that given by judicial construction to similar words in the Judiciary Act. Even though the constitutional language limits the

'18 Stat. 470.

[ocr errors]

1 Stat. 78.

Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267; Camp v. Gress, 250 U. S. 308, 312.

Opinion of the Court.

308 U.S.

judicial power to controversies wholly between citizens of different states, that requirement is satisfied here.1o

This is for the reason that there is a real controversy between the adverse claimants. They are brought into the court by the complainant stakeholder who simultaneously deposits the money or property, due and involved in the dispute, into the registry of the court. This was done in this case. The Act provides that the "court shall hear and determine the cause and shall discharge the complainant from further liability." Such deposit and discharge effectually demonstrates the applicant's disinterestedness as between the claimants and as to the property in dispute," an essential in interpleaders.12 The complainant is a proper party for the determination of the controversy between the adverse claimants, citizens of different states. Their controversy could have been settled by litigation between them in the federal courts. Under similar circumstances as to parties, this Court ruled that a removal of separable controversies to the federal court was permissible even though a proper defendant was a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff.1 We so held as to a stakeholder in Salem Co. v. Manufacturers' Co. There a suit was brought in a state court against the Manufacturers' Company, a Delaware cor

10 Cf. Chafee, Interpleader in the United States Courts, 41 Yale L. J. 1134, 1141, 1165; and Chafee, The Federal Interpleader Act of 1936, 45 Yale L. J. 963, 973.

"Diversity requirements for federal equity jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits from diverse claimants with claims contested by the debtor is not involved. Cf. Di Giovanni v. Camden Ins. Assn., 296 U. S. 64, 70.

"Sanders v. Fertilizer Works, 292 U. S. 190, 200; Killian v. Ebbinghaus, 110 U. S. 568, 571.

"Barney v. Latham, 103 U. S. 205, 213; cf. Pullman Co. v. Jenkins, 305 U. S. 534, 538.

1264 U. S. 182, 189.

66

Opinion of the Court.

poration, and against a co-citizen of plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, the International Trust Company. The Manufacturers' Company removed and plaintiff sought a remand alleging its co-citizen was a necessary party. The suit was to determine rights to a fund in the co-citizen's hands "and to have the same paid to" the plaintiff. The right of removal was upheld on the ground that the only obligation of the stakeholder was to pay over the money deposited with it. In Cramer v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.15 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, considering that the claimants were the real contestants, construed the Interpleader Act of May 8th, 1926,10 to give jurisdiction to the federal court although the interpleader and certain claimants were citizens of the same state. The language as to citizenship is the same as that of the act here involved."

Application of Interpleader Act. The inclusion as defendants of the judge of the Superior Court of Washington, the administrator of John Pelkes, and a court receiver of the property in dispute is said to violate the

15

* 91 F. 2d 141, 146. See also Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Lott, 275 F. 365, 372 (S. D. Cal.); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cross, 7 F Supp. 130 (S. D. N. Y.); cf. Eagle, Star and British Dominions v. Tadlock, 14 F. Supp. 933 (S. D. Cal.), reversed, 91 F. 2d 481 (C. C. A. 9); Ackerman v. Tobin, 22 F. 2d 541 (C. C. A. 8).

144 Stat. 416.

17

We do not determine whether the ruling here is inconsistent with the conclusion in those cases where jurisdiction was rested on diversity of citizenship between the applicant and co-citizens who are claimants. (Mallers v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 87 F. 2d 233 (C. C. A. 7), cert. denied, 301 U. S. 685 (New York corporation impleads Illinois claimants); Security Trust & Savings Bank v. Walsh, 91 F. 2d 481 (C. C. A. 9) (English corporation impleads California claimants); Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Meguire, 13 F. Supp. 967, 971 (W. D. Ky.) (Pennsylvania corporation impleads Kentucky claimants); Turman Oil Co. v. Lathrop, 8 F. Supp 870, 872 (N. D. Okla.) (Delaware corporation impleads Oklahoma claimants).

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »