Spelman v. Talbot

Pending an action against several defendants, on a joint contract, one of them died, and judgment was recovered against the surviving defendants more than two years after letters of administration had been taken out on the estate of the deceased. This judgment was paid by all the judgment debtors except one, who was insolvent. Held, that they could not maintain a bill in equity for contribution against the administrators of the estate of the deceased.

Bill ih equity, filed March 8, 1877, by O. G. Spelman, Lewis Bodman, Henry L. James, Joel Hayden and William Skinner, against the administrators of the estate of Joel Hayden, deceased. The bill alleged that the defendants’ intestate together with the plaintiffs and Alfred P. Critchlow and the Nonotuck Silk Company, by Lucius Dimock, executed the following instrument : “ Williamsburg, January 26, 1866. To J. E. Sheffield, esquire, Committee of the Northampton and New Haven Railroad Company. The undersigned, representing a large portion of business on the line of the proposed railroad from Northampton to Williamsburg, propose that, if your company will extend their road to Williamsburg as soon as practicable, we will undertake to secure good, responsible subscriptions to the stock of your company, to the amount of 1250 shares, and pay for the same in instalments, as needed for building the road. We also propose to secure the right of way for the road, free of expense to your company, from the westerly side of the town farm in Northampton to the western terminus of the road in Williamsburg, and also to obtain the needful legislation in Massachusetts to merge or consolidate the Northampton and Shelburne Falls Railroad Company with the Northampton and New Haven Railroad Company, so as to form one corporation from New Haven to Williamsburg. It is understood that this proposition is not to be binding on our part, unless we can secure the taking of the amount of stock above named, and also the right of way, or m».ira such arrangement in regard to the same as shall be satisfactory to your company; also that the stock (1250 shares) is not to share in the earnings of the road until the extension is in operation.” That the New Haven and Northampton Company, having complied with the terms of the above instrument, was called upon to pay damages to the owners of land for the right of way taken by it for such extension of its railroad; that thereupon the corporation called upon the signers of the instrument to make good their agreement, which they refused to do; and that thereupon such signers executed another instrument, under which the corporation settled such claims, as follows : “ Williamsburg, August 13, 1867. To the New Haven and Northampton Company. The undersigned, whose names are subscribed to proposals submitted in January, 1866, to the New Haven and Northampton Company for them to extend their railroad to Williamsburg, hereby agree that said company may go forward and secure the right of way for said road west of Northampton town farm, either by purchase or appraisement by the county commissioners, as said company may think best, and that it shall be done without prejudice to the legal rights of either party named in said proposals.” That by writ dated in May, 1869, the corporation commenced an action in the Superior Court against such signers for breach of contract and for money paid by reason of such breach, which action was defended by the defendants’ intestate and the other signers, and during the pendency of which on June 30, 1873, the following agreement, signed by the parties, was filed in the case: “ Judgment shall be rendered for the plaintiff as damages, as if upon a verdict, for three fifths of such sum as an assessor to be appointed by the court, unless agreed upon by the parties, shall find the plaintiffs have paid or are bound to pay for their right of way described in the contract, with interest thereon. Said assessors shall report each item, and the grounds of allowance or rejection, and shall also report any questions of law arising in the making of such assessment, if requested by either party, to this court, with right to take the same to Supreme Judicial Court. It is understood that the verdicts, awards and amounts paid shall be considered the value of the premises taken. Any outstanding claims in favor of the Nonotuck Silk Company against the plaintiff are agreed to be adjusted and paid by the said Joel Hayden and others, defendants in the above suit, but without prejudice to any claim said defendants may have on Lucius Dimock or said Nonotuck Silk Co. for contribution.” That on November 10, 1873, and during the pendency of said action, the defendants’ intestate died, and on December 3, 1873, the defendants were duly appointed administrators of his estate, and gave due notice thereof, as required by law; that in June, 1875, the plaintiffs procured a summons to issue from said Superior Court to the defendants as administrators, to appear and defend the action, which summons was duly served, and at October term 1875, on motion of said administrators, the process was dismissed, as having been issued inadvertently and without authority of law, and exceptions alleged to such order were overruled by this court in January, 1876. (New Haven Northampton Co. v. Hayden, 119 Mass. 361.] That on June 28, 1876, the corporation obtained judgment in said action, in accordance with the terms of the agreement upon the assessors’ report, dated June 18, 1876, against the plaintiffs herein and A. P. Critchlow, and on July 5, 1876, execution issued thereon for the sum of $24,144.14 damages, and $523.80 costs of suit; that the same was demanded of and was paid by the plaintiffs, equally, on July 7, 1876, with the sum of $41 interest, $3724.87 necessary expenses, and $3003.75, and interest from October 3, 1869, being the amount of judgment of that date in favor of the Nonotuck Silk Company, for damages against the New Haven and Northampton Company, assumed by the plaintiffs and the defendants’ intestate, by the terms of the agreement; that A. P. Critchlow has paid no part of such sums, by reason of inability, and no part thereof is collectible against him; that the Nonotuck Silk Company was adjudged, upon the trial of the original action, not to be a party to the first above named instrument, and has paid no part of such sums ; and that since the payments were made by the plaintiffs, they have demanded of the defendants contribution of their intestate’s share thereof, which they have refused to pay. The prayer of the bill was for judgment for the amount of the defendants’ intestate’s contributory share in the sums paid by the plaintiffs, and for general relief. The answer contained a demurrer for want of equity, and alleged that the plaintiffs remedy, if any, was at law. Hearing before Gray, C. J., who made a decree, dismissing the bill for want of equity, and without prejudice to an action at law by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed.