Appellant having brought a number of actions against appellee in
the district court, all cognizable there because arising under a
law of the United States, appellee filed in that court a bill
ancillary and dependent in form setting up a partial equitable
defense to all the actions and other partial defenses to some, and
praying that the whole matter be tried in equity and the legal
proceedings enjoined. The bill also showed diversity of
citizenship. Relief was decreed accordingly in the district court
and circuit court of appeals.
Held that the bill was
dependent and ancillary, that the jurisdiction to entertain it was
referable to that invoked in the actions at law, and that the
decree of the circuit court of appeals was therefore reviewable by
appeal. Jud.Code, §§ 128, 241.
In a much litigated case, presenting only questions of fact and
well settled questions of general law, unaffected by any ruling on
any federal question, where the federal courts of two circuits had
reached the same conclusions of fact independently, this Court,
being satisfied
Page 245 U. S. 103
from the record and assignments, examined in the light of the
opinion below, that the ruling were so clearly right that the
appeal seemed to be taken without reasonable justification, and
therefore for delay, sustained a motion to affirm the decree.
241 F. 357 affirmed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion by MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER, by direction of
the Court.
A motion to dismiss or affirm is presented.
In its simplest form, the case is this: Laura Eichel as use
plaintiff began 18 separate actions at law against the guaranty
company in the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, all being cognizable in that court because arising
under a law of the United States. The guaranty company, conceiving
that it had a partial equitable defense, not admissible at law,
which was common to all the cases, and other partial defenses in
particular cases, exhibited in that court a bill describing the
actions at law, setting forth the defenses, showing that nothing
was in controversy beyond the defenses, and praying that the entire
matter be examined and adjudicated in a single proceeding in equity
and further proceedings at law enjoined. Although showing that the
parties were citizens of different states, the bill was framed as a
dependent and ancillary bill, and the court was asked to entertain
it as such in virtue of the jurisdiction already acquired. The
court did entertain it, and ultimately sustained the equitable
defense, partly sustained some
Page 245 U. S. 104
of the others, ascertained the amount of the liability of the
guaranty company upon the claims set forth in the actions at law,
and ordered that this amount, with interest, be paid in
satisfaction of those claims. The circuit court of appeals made a
small reduction in the amount of the company's liability, made
provision for subrogating the company to the rights of Mrs. Eichel
against a bankrupt's estate in process of administration, and
affirmed the decree as so modified. 241 F. 357.
Plainly the bill was dependent and ancillary, and the
jurisdiction to entertain it was referable to that invoked and
existing in the actions at law out of which it arose.
Jones v.
Andrews, 10 Wall. 327,
77 U. S. 333;
Dewey v. West Fairmont Gas Coal Co., 123 U.
S. 329,
123 U. S. 333;
Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul
Co., 2 Wall. 609,
69 U. S. 633;
Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276,
110 U. S. 281;
Johnson v. Christian, 125 U. S. 642,
125 U. S. 645;
Carey v. Houston & Texas Central Ry. Co., 161 U.
S. 115;
Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser, 9 F. 226;
Hill v. Kuhlman, 87 F. 498. This being so, the decree of
the circuit court of appeals is open to review here.
See
Jud.Code, §§ 128, 241. The motion to dismiss the appeal
is therefore denied.
The decree, as the record shows, turned upon questions of fact
and of general law, unaffected by any ruling upon any federal
question. The case is part of a prolonged litigation which is now
brought to our attention for the fourth time.
Bray v.
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 225 U.
S. 205; 239 U.S. 628; Eichel v. U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co.,
239 U.S. 629. It has engaged the attention of the
courts of two circuits on several occasions, some of the decisions
being reported and others not. Bray v. U.S. Fidelity &
Guaranty Co.,
170 F. 689; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
v. Bray,
218 F. 987; U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.
Eichel,@ 219 F. 803; 233 F. 991; 241 F. 357. Upon the questions of
fact, the courts in the two circuits, proceeding independently,
have reached identical conclusions. The questions of law are few
and well settled. After examining the record in the light of the
opinions below and the assignments of error here, we are
convinced
Page 245 U. S. 105
that the rulings were right, so clearly so that the appeal seems
to be without reasonable justification, and therefore to have been
taken for delay. The motion to affirm is accordingly sustained.
Decree affirmed.
