The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1902-08-08

1
/ irreparable injury viii result to said
company and the complainant; that
because of all such actions by defend
ants the Clarksburg Fuel Company
cannot successfully prosecute its bust
ness; that the Guaranty Trust Com
pany is without remedy at law, and
can only find protection in equity. To
this bill no appearance had been
entered, nor any answer or de-
murrer filed nor plea rendered
at the time the judgments OF con-
viction against the petitioners we're
pronounced. The allegations Of the
bill we're not denied, and so far ss the
proceedings 10 Equity were concerned
they stood uncontroverted when such
judgments we're entered.
The claim OF want Of Jurisdiction in
the Court rendering the Judgment
complained of is based on the fact that
the Clst ksburg Fuel Company was not
made party to said suit. Is such in
slstence supported by the law and the
practice in cases Of this character
Counsel for petitioners admit that a
MORTGAGE may maintain such suit as
said complainant has instituted, but
they insist that the mortgagor must
Of necessity be made a party thereto.
Ordinarily that is true,-Is 1t always
so,-are there circumstances under
which it is not necessary ?
On the bill mentioned, the salient
points OF which have referred to, can
decree be entered that will dispose
OF the questions raised, without the
presence OF the ClarksburR Fuel Com
pany? think that it can. has the
complainant any controversy with
that company, and is any relief asked
for from 1t, or Is any decree prayed for
against the defendants the granting
of which by the court requires any dis
closure from that company, in order
that full and complete justice may be
done? In other words is there equity
In the bill as It was drawn and filed !?
l find that there is. The Guaranty
Trust Company, a citizen OF the State
Of New York, is entitled to be heard
in the Circuit Court of the United
States for the Northern District Of
West Virginia, concerning property
located In that District, as to which it
has interests amounting to over one
million dollars, which it alleges GER
tain citizens of West Virginia and of
states other than New York, are con-
spring together for the purpose Of in
jurlng and destroying. Has not the
Guaranty Trust Company such an In
terest In this property, as trustee aud
as creditor, as will require a court OF
equity to entertain its complaint, un-
der the circumstances set forth in this
bill, even though its mortgagor Is not
a party What claim does the Guar
anty Company set up that In any way
antagonizes the interests OF the
ClarkSburg Fuel Company !? II the
Fuel Company we're in collision with
the defendants, or II it denied the
validity OF the mortgage, or II there
were question as to the title to It's
property, or its right to mine and sell
coal and employ men for that purpose,
or IL the suit we're foreclosure pro.
ceeding, then 1t would not only be a
proper but an Indispensable party.
The cases cited by counsel for petition
ers, Consolidated Water Co., VS.. Bah
cock, rs Fed. 243: Consolidated Water
Co., VS.. City OF San Diego ct al, 81
Fed. 1863: Consolidated W ter
Co., VS.. City OF San Diego ct al, 03
Fe ]. $40, have had my careful scrutiny,
and with the reasoning and cOnClu-
sions therein respectively reached l
am, under the circumstances Of those
cases in full accord. They differ radi.
cally In some particulars from the
case we are now considering, although
in some respects they are quite SINH.
lar toit
In the first case mentioned. the
point relied on is that it was held that
where person is so related to the
subject matter of the suit that his
rights must unavOldably be passed
upon by the court inreaching decree,
he is a necessary party. That point
have already in effect considered and
disposed OF, as l understand its appll-
cation to cases such as this. The sec
ond case mentioned decides that in a
suit by mortgage Of a water com.
pany, the object Of which is to enioin
the enforcement of an ordinance Of a
city fixing water rates, the mortgagor
is necessary party, Surely that must
be so, and surely the questions tissue
in thecase of the Guaranty Company
are not Identical with those existing
in the one Just cited, in which the
city through its municipal authorities
had established an ordinance fixing
the rate at which water should be
furnished, such ordinance being alleg.
ed to be null and void upon the ground
that the rates therein established
we're so unreasonably low as to amount
to the taking of the mortgaged prop
erty.without just compensation. In