Case ID: g-j_12/html/0113-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spence, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William G. Penn vs. N. Brewer, Administrator of John Brewer and James Boyle.
    
    December 1841.
    A bill in the county court, seeking its interposition upon the same grounds previously decreed upon in the Court of Chancery, at the suit of the same complainant, without communicating the proceedings which had taken place iii Chancery, is a contempt offered to the county court, and an abuse of its privileges, which merit, and might be visited with, severe reprehension.
    A trustee appointed by the Court of Chancery, is an officer of that court, acting under its direction and authority; and so far as concerns matters of equitable jurisdiction, as to what he does, or ought to do, in discharge of his duties, is alone responsible to that court.
    Appeal from the equity side of Montgomery county court.
    On the 11th February, 1829, the appellant filed his bill, ypon which was an order directing an injunction and subpeena :'o issue in the usual manner, which was done accordingly; and returned by the sheriff, served and summoned. The defendants appeared and filed their answers. Some time in the year 1836, the hill and all the papers belonging to the cause were lost. On the 9th January, 1837, on motion of the complainant, and by consent of the defendants, the court granted permission to file a bill, exhibits, and injunction bond. The bill alleged that a judgment was rendered against the said William G. Perm in Montgomery county court at November term, 1822, in favor of John Brewer ; that John Brewer had been appointed a trustee to sell the real estate of Charles Penn, senior, and made sales to the appellant, who paid to the said John Brewer, and by his directions to the heirs of Charles Penn, senior, large sums of money; that John Brewer died in 1827; that Nicholas Brewer is his administrator j and that James Boyle was the attorney of the plaintiff in the proceedings to affect Charles Penn, senior’s land; and that he had paid said Boyle in full for his purchase. The bill then alleged that fl. fa. had been issued on the judgment against him, and his property levied upon, and taken to satisfy the judgment against him. Prayer for an injunction, subpoena, and relief.
    The answer of Nicholas Brewer, as administrator, alleged that he did not know what payments had been made by the appellant Penn; that after the death of his intestate, James Boyle, esquire, was appointed trustee in his place; that he knows nothing of any settlement between Boyle and Penn.
    
    The answer of James Boyle denied that his predecessor ever authorised the appellant to pay the heirs of Charles Penn, senior, their proportions of his estate; that if he did so, he exceeded his authority; that said sale of Penn’s land was under the decree of the Court of Chancery; that John Brewer was appointed trustee by that court, who had to sue William G. Penn for his purchase money, for which purpose this respondent was the attorney of said trustee; that respondent is the successor of the said John Brewer in the said trust; that this defendant has not received the alleged payments from the said William G. Penn.
    
    This defendant further states, that on the 24th March, 1812, a decree was passed by the Court of Chancery that the real estates of Charles Penn, senior, and Nathan Waters should be sold to raise the sum of, &c., which decree was affirmed upon appeal; that the said John Bo-ewer was appointed trustee; that the land was decreed to be sold as the land of Nathan Waters, and was so sold as his, because insufficient to pay the one-half of the said debt; and that the Chancellor on or about the 9th June, 1824, passed a decree that the trustee should not pay the representatives of Charles Penn any further sums of money, without the further order of the court, or to any other person claiming to represent them, or to allow any other credits on account of any receipts to the said representatives. The said trustee John Bo-ewer on being compelled to sue said complainant, employed this defendant as his attorney, who brought suit against the complainant, and obtained a judgment as stated in the said bill of complaint. The answer then proceeded to set forth the various payments with their respective dates and amounts, made by the said complainant, as appeared by the report of the auditor of the Court of Chancery, dated 25th April, 1826, and which report has been confirmed. That afterwards, on the petition of John Hoye, &c., to wit, on the 28th February, 1828, it was ordered, &c., that the several receipts or assignments of the respective representatives of the late Charles Penn, senior, should be allowed in favor of the assignee, the complainant W. G. P. claiming under them, and that the trustee should apply the proceeds as directed by the order confirming the auditor’s report, made on the 29th January, 1823; from which an appeal was had, and at June term, 1828, the said decree of the 28th February, 1825, was reversed and the cause remanded to Chancery. This defendant further states, that the said John Brewer is dead, and on the 4th August, 1828, this defendant was appointed trustee by the Court of Chancery, to carry the decree under which the said John was appointed trustee, into effect, and was such trustee at the time the injunction in this case was first granted and issued; that he never received any money from the complainant as trustee, and that the sum of $500 claimed by the complainant, has never been paid. This defendant further answering says, that on the 14th August, 1828, the complainant filed in the Court of Chancery his petition, setting forth the said decree of the Court of Appeals, and praying that the defendant as trustee, should be restrained from proceeding against him until the matter of the said petition should be heard; that an account should be taken of the'monies paid by him to the trustee, and to the representatives of Charles Penn, senior, and allowance made him for all such payments, which petition the Chancellor on the 26lh January, 1829, after mature deliberation dismissed, as to grant it would be in effect to reverse the decree of the Court of Appeals; that this complainant Penn not being satisfied with all those reversals, applied to the Honorable Court for relief, and carefully concealing the above facts, obtained an injunction. He therefore submits that the said W. G. P. is in contempt, &c.
    With this answer exhibits of the judicial proceedings were filed by the respondent, and after various proceedings, the county court, (Dorsey, C. J., and Wilkinson, A. J.,) at November term, 1839, decreed as follows:
    The complainant in this cause having in the first instance applied to the Court of Chancery for relief as to most of the matters of equity, which form the basis of his present application, and his bill or petition being there dismissed upon its merits, his filing a bill in this court, seeking its interposition upon the same grounds, without communicating the proceedings which had taken place in Chancery, is a contempt offered to this court, and an abuse of its privileges, which merit, and might be visited with severe reprehension. If the complainant felt himself aggrieved by the decision of the Chancellor, his remedy was by appeal to the appropriate tribunal, not by concealing what had been done, to seek the same relief which had been denied him in Chancery, at the hands of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction. But there is another objection to the complainant’s appeal to this court for relief, which meets the whole equity of his bill so far as jurisdiction is concerned. The defendant, whose acts are sought to be impeached, whose conduct is attempted to be controlled, is an officer of the Court of Chancery, acting under its direction and authority, and in that tribunal must be held responsible for what he does in the discharge of his duties as far as concerns matters of equitable jurisdiction. For bis official conduct he is there amenable. Whether he has acted according to its orders and rules prescribed for his governance; what disposition he has made, or should make of the funds confided to his charge, as to all equitable proceeding in relation thereto, must be determined primarily in the Chancery Court. To permit a court of equity of co-ordinate jurisdiction to interfere in such matters, would lead to a conflict of jurisdiction, productive of ruinous consequences. The complainant’s bill must therefore he dismissed.
    From this decree the complainant appealed, and his appeal was argued before Archer, Chambers and Spence, Judges.
    By A. C. Magrtjder for the appellant, and
    By Boyle, D. A. G. for the appellee.
   Spence, J.,

stated, that this court concurs in the decision of the county court, and in the reasons assigned by that tribunal for dismissing the bill. decree affirmed.