Basket v. Hassell (107 U.S. 602)

by Stanley Matthews

United States Supreme Court

107 U.S. 602

Basket  v.  Hassell

This is a bill in equity, filed by the appellee, a citizen of Tennessee, to which, besides the appellant, a citizen of Kentucky, the Evansville National Bank of Evansville, Indiana, Samuel Bayard, its president, and Henry Reis, its cashier, and James W. Shackelford and Robert D. Richardson, attorneys for Basket, citizens of Indiana, were made parties defendant. The single question in the case was, whether a certain fund, represented by a certificate of deposit, issued by the bank to Chaney in his life-time, belonged to Basket, who claimed it as a gift from Chaney, having possession of the certificate, or to the appellee, as Chaney's administrator. Basket asserted his title not only by answer, but by a cross-bill. The final decree ordered the certificate of deposit to be surrendered to the complainant, and that the bank pay to the complainant, as its holder, the amount due thereon. The money was then tendered by the bank, in open court, and the certificate was deposited with the clerk. It was thereupon ordered, Basket having prayed an appeal, that until the expiration of the time allowed for filing a bond on appeal, the bank should hold the money as a deposit at 4 per cent. interest, but if a bond be given, that the same be paid to the clerk, and by him loaned to the bank on the same terms. Basket failed to give the bond required for a supersedeas, but afterwards prayed another appeal, which he perfected by giving bond for costs alone. To this appeal Basket and the appellee are the parties respectively, the co-defendants not having appealed, or been cited after severance. And, on the ground that they are necessary parties, the appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal.

It is apparent, however, that the sole controversy is between the present parties to the appeal. By the delivery of the certificate of deposit to the clerk the attorneys of Basket are exonerated from all responsibility, and the payment of the money by the bank to the appellee equally relieves it and its officers; for, not being parties to the appeal, and the execution of the decree not having been superseded, the decree will always furnish them protection, whether affirmed or reversed, because, if reversed, it would only be so as between the parties to the appeal. So that the omitted parties have no legal interest, either in maintaining or reversing the decree, and consequently, are not necessary parties to the appeal. Simpson v. Greely, 20 Wall. 152; Cox v. u. s. 6 Pet. 182; Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 203; Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 261. The motion to dismiss the appeal is accordingly overruled.

The fund in respect to which the controversy has arisen was represented by a certificate of deposit, of which the following is a copy: 'EVANSVILLE NATIONAL BANK,

'EVANSVILLE, IND., Sept. 8, 1875.

'H. M. Chaney has deposited in this bank twenty-three thousand five hundred and fourteen 70-100 dollars, payable in current funds, to the order of himself, on surrender of this certificate properly indorsed, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, if left for six months.

'$23,514.70.

HENRY REIS, Cashier.'

Chaney, being in possession of this certificate at his home in the county of Sumner, state of Tennessee, during his last sickness and in apprehension of death, wrote on the back thereof the following indorsement:

'Pay to Martin Basket, of Henderson, Ky.; no one else; then, not till my death. My life seems to be uncertain. I may live through this spell. Then I will attend to it myself.

'H. M. CHANEY.' Chaney then delivered the certificate to Basket, and died, without recovering from that sickness, in January, 1876.

P. Phillips and W. Hallett Phillips, for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel on pages 604-608 intentionally omitted]

Asa Iglehart, for appellee.

MATTHEWS, J.

Notes