Court Opinion

ID: 9868494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:37:50.220511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:51.066268
License: Public Domain

*497OiT PETITION BOR R.E,HEARING'.
By the bill complainants seek a decree against Owen for a large sum of money, npon allegations that while in his employ in the construction of certain Government projects he only paid them twenty-five per cent of the wages to which they were entitled.
Owen was a snb-contractor and is the only defendant who has any interest in the outcome of the suit.
Certain employees of the principal contractors were made defendants for the sole purpose of obtaining from them evidence as to sums paid Owen by the principal contractors for complainants. Two of such employees, Erich E. Schmied and C. J. Wagner, demurred to the bill, the first four grounds being as follows:
“1. The bill fails to allege that the facts sought to be discovered of these defendants are material to com-painants’ case, or that compainants are unable to prove by other testimony the evidence sought to be discovered.
“2. The bill shows on its face that the facts sought to be discovered of these defendants are immaterial to the relief prayed, and if material, could be readily proved by other testimony.
“3. Because the bill is multifarious in that it seeks a discovery of matters separate and distinct from the specific relief sought.
“4. Because the bill shows on its face that the discovery is sought upon suspicion, surmise or vague guesses, and is commonly known as a ‘Fishing Bill,’ and that complainants are not entitled to a discovery of the matters in their bill prayed.”
The chancellor overruled the demurrer, in the main, and granted demurrants an appeal to this court.
*498In our original opinion we held that this was a controversy between employer and employees, and that, upon authority of Steward v. A. W. Kutsche & Co., 168 Tenn., 133, 76 S. W. (2d), 315; A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Anderson, 169 Tenn., 98, 83 S. W. (2d), 243; and A. W. Kutsche & Co. v. Keith, 169 Tenn., 390, 88 S. W. (2d), 454, this court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter, reversed the decree of the chancellor and dismissed the bill as to these demurrants.
Oomplaintants, in their petition to rehear, direct attention to the fact that subsequent to the decision in the three cases cited above, Congress on August 30, 1935, amended the Federal Statute, 40 U. IS. C. A., section 276a, in such a manner as to take the present case without those de.-eisions; and further, that this cause is not based upon the Federal Statutes, and that they may be ignored. No reference was made in brief of counsel as to this amendment upon the original hearing. In view, however, of the aSbove concession no further reference will be made to the Federal Statutes, 'and the petition to rehear will be granted to the extent that so much of our original opinion as holds that the state courts are without jurisdiction to determine this controversy is retracted and withdrawn, the court expressing no opinion as to whether or not the state courts have jurisdiction of the subject matter.- This is a question that in no wise affects these demurrants'.
The court, however, adheres, to its original opinion in reversing the decree of the chancellor and dismissing the bill as to demurrants.
We have been cited to no authority holding that dis'l interested parties, available as witnesses, can be properly made defendants for the purpose of procuring evidence from them.
*499The object of a bill of discovery is to ascertain from the adverse party facts resting in bis knowledge or tbe discovery of deeds, or writings, or other things in his custody or power. Gibson’s Suits in Chancery, Cham-bliss Edition, Secs. 1116-1118; 17 Am. Jur., pp. 1, 2. In 17 Am. Jur., 25, it is said:
“Clearly, however, a bill of discovery does not lie against one not interested and who may be a witness. Similarly, where a bill in equity is instituted for relief and for a discovery in aid of such relief, a person who has no interest in the subject-matter of the suit and against whom no relief is sought can not properly be made a party defendant for the purpose of discovery.”
There is no necessity for such a discovery, since such party can be examined as a witness; and where his testimony is desired before the cause is at issue, his testimony can be had de bene esse as provided by iSec. 10571 of the Code.