BARtLET'J: V. HIS IMPERIA.L :MA.JESty tHE SULtAN.
BARTLETT and others v. HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE SULTAN, etc.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. W AREHOUBEMAN-ADVERE'E
(''LAIMANTB OF GOODs-INTERPLEADER.
A warehouseman whose lien for storage is not disputed cannot maintain a bill of interpleader to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to goods stored with him as against the bailor. but must defend himself at law.
Motion for Injunction pendente lite. W. W. Goodrich, of counsel, for complainants. Butler, Stillman et for defendants. Tkos. E. Stillman and Adrian H ..loline, of counsel. WALLACE, J. Complainants' motion for an injunction pendente lite is resisted mainly upon the ground that the complainants' bill is demurrable for want of equity. The bill shows that the complainants, as warehousemen, have in their possession a large quantity of arms, of the value of about $900,000, which were deposited with them by the firm of Drexel, Morgan & Co., and for which, in July, 1882, complainants, at the request of Drexel, Morgan & Uo., issued negotiable warehouse receipts; that shortly thereafter the defendant, the sultan of Turkey, claiming to be the owner of the arms, demanded them of complainants, and upon their refusal to give them up brought an action at law in this court for trover; that thereafter the American National Bank of Providence, claiming to be the holder of the warehouse receipts issued by complainants, demanded the arms, and upon complainants refusal to deliver them brought an action against them in this court. The bill also alleges that the Providence Tool Company and one Hunt claim some interest in the arms. The sultan, the American National Bank of Providence, the Providence Tool Company, and Hunt are made defendants in the bill, and the prayer is for jin injunction restraining all proceedings on the part of the defendants in relation to the arms, and that they be required to interplead. So far as appears by the bill, none of the parties claiming the prop- . arty in complainants' possession dispute complainants' lien for storage and charges. The complainants, therefore, have no interests of their own to assert or protect further than to be relieved from liability to two or more different claimants of the property. None of the defendants claim title derived from the complainants. The American National Bank derives title from the bailors of the complainants, and the other defendants assert a paramount title. 'fhe bill is a pure bill of interpleader, and presents the common case of a bailee who seeks to protect himself against the claim of his bailor and that of a third person who asserts an adverse title to the bailor. The authorities are decisive against his right to maintain an interpleader. It is sufficient to refer to Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 v.23F,no.6-17
Mylne & C. 1; Marvin v. Ellwood, 11 Paige, 365; FiTst Nat. Bank v. Bininger, 26 N.J. Eq. 345.. The hardship of the case has frequently been adverted to by the authorities; and in England a remedy has been given by statute. Common Law Proc. Act 1860, § 12. Sea Attenboroughv. St. Katharine's Dock Co. L. R. 3 O. P. Div. 873,877; ld.450. As is said by Judge STORY: "The party holding the property must defend himself as well as he can at law, and he is not entitled to the assistance of a court of equity, for that wouid be to assume the right to try merely legal titles upon a controversy between differeut parties where there is no privity of contract between them and the third ])"rson who calls for an interpleader." Story, Eq. § 820. The motion must be denied.
PIONEER GOLD MINING
(CirCUit Court, D. Califomia. February 9, 1885.)
MINING CORPORATION ·
CONTRACTS OF DIRECTORS -
In view of the facts clearly established by the testimony in this case, held, that the sheriff's sales set out in the complaint, had and brought about as they were, and the con tract made by the directors, were, in effect, a mortgage for the purposes set out in the contract.
Equity, to determine whether a written instrument is, in effect, a mortgage, hears parol evidence, not to contradict or vary the terms of the instrument, but to raise an equity superior to it, and give it effect according to the true intent and purpose of the parties.
SAME-PERSONAL OBLIGATION OF MORTGAGOR.
A mortgage may be created as well without as with an accompanying personal obligation of the mortgagor to pay the debt secured or attempted to be secured thereby. In the one case the property alone is charged with the lien,is! looked to solely by the mortgagee out of which to make his lien; in .the other,he has the additional security of the personal obligation of the mortgagor.
SAME-DEBT CHARGEABLE ONLY AGAINST CERTAIN PROPEItTY -}IEASURE OF SECURITY.
A debt chargeable only against certain property is, in effect. simply a debt with limited means of satisfaction or enforcement; the value of the property charged with the indebtedness is the measure of the security afforded. 5.
SAME-CONDITIONAL SALE OR MORTGAGE
In cases of doubt whether a transaction was a conditional sale or a mortgage, equity will hold it to be a mortgage, by so doing the rights of each party Bre preserved; the mortgagor is permitted, upon fulfillment of his contract, to save his property, and t.he mortgagee receives his just dues. Under the circumstances of tbis case, considering the whole transaction as a mortgage, a tender upon the exact day was not strictly necessary to preserve the rights of the parties under the con tract.
SAME-DECISIONS OF STATE COUR1.'-STATE STATUTE.
Where. under the statutes of a state, a contract would be considered a mortgage, a United States court, in such state, in carrying such contract into effect, will be guided by the decisiOns of the supreme court of such state.