Majority
p. 208National Union Bank, Appellant, v. The London and River Plate Bank (Limited), and Others, Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
Headnote
Injunction—in an action to 'restrain separate suits w'ising upon different facts in order that all the controversies might he determined, in the one suit.Upon a motion made in an action, brought for the purpose of securing an adjudication respecting the conflicting rights of the defendants in certain securities, the proceeds of which were in the hands of the plaintiff, to restrain the defendants from prosecuting four several suits brought by them-respectively, it appeared that the firm of Abe Stein & Oo. had o'pened an account with the plaintiff; had deposited a draft for that purpose as well as certain collateral;. that -the plaintiff had thereupon paid many checks of the firm, and had discounted one of its notes; that thereafter the plaintiff collected the draft and sold the collaterals,
p. 209
and claimed to apply upon the indebtedness to it all. but a small portion of the' proceeds thereof. Each of the suits in question resulted from transactions had with Abe Stein & Co.; in one case the claimant sought to trace and follow certain goods whose proceeds were alleged to have come into the hands of the plaintiff; in another case the claimant sought to replevy certain goods from certain warehousemen (who were not parties to the present action), in which the claimant in that action made no claim against this plaintiff, who, however, held-the warehouse receipts for such goods; in another case it was alleged that Abe. Stein & Co. had wrongfully sold certain bales of merchandise, and that a part of the proceeds had come into the hands of the plaintiff, and in the fourth the receiver of the firm of Abe Stein & Co. sought by his action to recover of the plaintiff a balance remaining in its hands after the claim of the plaintiff against Abe Stein & Co. had been satisfied.
Held, that the' plaintiff was not in the position of a stakeholder and was not entitled to an injunction;
That the questions at issue in the different suits could not properly be determined in the present action, as each claim depended upon a different state of facts, and related to different property, or the proceeds thereof.
Appeal' by the plaintiff, the National Union Bank, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the" clerk of the county of New York on the 24th day of December, 1895, denying the plaintiff’s motion for an injunction pendente lite, except from so much of said order as vacated an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 17th day of December, 1895, upon said motion.
This action is brought for the purpose of procuring a determination of the conflicting rights of various parties, each claiming portions of the proceeds of certain securities heretofore held by the firm of Abe Stein & Co., and which proceeds are now in the hands of the plaintiff.
Various actions at law and suits in equity having been brought upon these claims, the plaintiff in this action' made a motion for an injunction restraining the prosecution of the other actions until a determination should be had herein. This motion was denied, and from the order entered thereon this appeal is taken. .
It appeared that in November, 1893, the firm of Abe Stein & Co. desiring to open an account with and obtain credit from this plaintiff, the National Union Bank, deposited with the bank a draft, duly indorsed, for $25,000, which was duly collected, and the proceeds of which the plaintiff bank claims as a bona fide purchaser for value. In consideration of that deposit the bank discounted that
p. 210
firm’s note for- $10,000, which, note was intended to- be secured by a deposit of collateral.
The noté falling due in December, and being unpaid and uncollectible, the- collateral was sold by this plaintiff, and' realized the sum Of $35,751.24. The total amount of cash received by the plaintiff, the National Union Bank, from Abe Stein" & Co., was :
(1) Proceeds of a draft on the Fourth National Bank. $25', 000 00 ,
(2) Proceeds from the sale of collateral deposited to
secure the note of $40,000 .... ................. 35, 751 24
' $60,751 24
Against this sum of $60,751.24, credited by the plaintiff to- Abe Stein & Co., the plaintiff sets off:
(1) The aggregate amount of checks paid by the plain- t
■ tiff to the order, of Abe Stein & Co.-............ $56, 871 4l
(2) The amount charged by the plaintiff for discounting the note for $40,000...................... 813 33
Total ....................i............ .... $57; 684 74'
weaving a balance in cash in the hands of the plaintiff amounting to the sum of $3,066.50. • ' .
The actions sought to be restrained ate four in number:
((1) The defendant, The London and River Plate Bank, claims moneys, a portion of the $25,000 draft, in. an, ..equitable suit against the National Union Bank alone, the claim being that certain goods which were the property of the said London and River Plate Bank, and which had been placed in the hands of the firm of Abe Stein & Co. as trustee for the said London and River Plate Bank, were sold by the said firm, and that.the cash proceeds of this sale-found their way into the hands of the National Union Bank; and the London and River Plate Bank-seeks to trace and follow- its goods, and reclaim the proceeds of their- sale from the National Unión Bank, the present holder.
(2) The action brought by the defendants Herman Cl. Eleinworifc and, Alexander D. Elein-wort against the firm of Campbell, Nichols & Gwyer was an action of replevin to recover certain specific bales-of goods, alleged in .the complaint in that action to be the
p. 211
property of the said Kleinworts, but which had been deposited in the warehouse conducted by the said firm of Campbell, Nichols & Gwyer, and the warehouse receipts therefor issued in the name of Abe Stein & Co.
(3) The complaint, in the action brought by Joseph B. Moors and Arthur "W. Moors against the National Union Bank and others alleged that certain bales of merchandise, the property of the Bank of Montreal (to whose rights'the Moors succeeded) had been wrongfully sold by the firm of Abe Stein & Co., and that a portion of the proceeds thereof wore in the hands of the receiver of Abe Stein & Co. (who was made a party defendant ip that action) and part thereof in the hands of the Bank of America (another defendant in that action) and a part thereof (being a portion of the proceeds of the $25,000 draft deposited by Abe Stein & Co. in the National Union Bank) was in the hands of the National Union Bank.
(4) The action of David Wile, as receiver of Abe Stein & Co., against the National Union Bank, was brought to recover the balance of $3,066.50 remaining in the hands of the said National Union Bank to the credit of Abe Stein & Co.
Herbert Barry, Charles Francis Stone and Julian T. Dories, for the appellant.
Wm..Baton Cordon, for the respondent, The London and River Plate Bank.
Charles Steele, for the respondents Kleinwort.
The plaintiff asked the court at Special Term to enjoin the defendants, who had instituted four suits, from prosecuting the said suits, and that the questions .involved in such actions be determined in this action. We know of no principle that would justify such an application. The plaintiff is not in the position of a stakeholder having in his possession money or property to which there are several claims. None of the defendants in the action, except the receiver, claims this specific balance from the plaintiff. All of the defendants, except the defendants Kleinwort, allege various causes of action against the plaintiff, each one different
p. 212
from the others in its nature, and arising out of different transactions. As to the defendants Kleinwort, they make no claim against the plaintiff at all, but seek to recover from certain warehousemen, who are not parties to the action, certain merchandise or its value. There is no fund in the hands of the plaintiff to which the several parties •make independent claims, nor spebiiic property in which two or more parties claim an interest. These defendants, except the . receiver, seek to recover the proceeds of certain property that has . come into the hands of the plaintiff. But each claim depends upon., a different state of facts, and relates to different property, or the ■ proceeds thereof. ■ The position is analogous to that of a deposit of several promissory notes with the plaintiff by a depositor for collec- . tian, which the plaintiff had collected and applied to the payment of a debt due by the depositor to the plaintiff, and a subsequent. claim by the real owners of each of the promissory notes to a recovery from the plaintiff of the proceeds of the notes that he had collected.
In such a case the right of the alleged owner of each of the, notes to. recover its proceeds from the plaintiff would be an entirely distinct cause of action, in which the owners of the other notes would have no interest, and upon no principle could a court of equity compel the determination of such independent claims in one action. The claim of each defendant is an independent cause of action arising upon different facts and circumstances, and has no connection with the others, except that the plaintiff’s title to the property that each claimant seeks to recover came through the same individual.
The order was clearly right, and it must be affirmed, with ten . dollars costs and disbursements.
Van Brunt, P. J., Rtjmsey and O’Bbien, JJ., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.