Where a petition is filed in a court of chancery by a creditor
praying to be admitted as a party complainant in a suit then
existing, but the nature of the original suit is not made to
appear, the proceeding is irregular and cannot be sustained.
Where a chancery suit involves matters of account, the action of
a master should be had in the inferior court, and the items
admitted or rejected should be stated so that exception may be
taken to the particular items or class of items, and such a case
should be brought before this Court on the rulings of the
exceptions by the circuit court.
Ransom filed a petition in a cause then pending in the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia, and all that the record
exhibited with respect to said cause was its title, namely:
William S. Herrman v. Isabella Davis and Thomas Winn,
administrators, Ignatius T. Davis, Francis R. Davis, heirs at law
of Thomas J. Davis, deceased. In chancery.
But upon what ground Herrman filed a bill against the
administrators and heirs of Davis the record did not show. The
subsequent proceedings are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 59 U. S. 296
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The proceedings on which the appeal was taken were had on a
petition of the appellant, Ransom, in the circuit court of the
district, stating that he was the creditor of the intestate for
$8,113.48, a balance due on merchandise furnished, and other
matters of account. An account was filed with the petition showing
the items charged, and he prayed to be made a party in a suit
pending, and he adopts the allegations and prayers of the bill, and
calls upon the defendants to answer &c.
No answer was filed by the defendants, nor does any part of the
original bill to which reference is made, or any proceeding in that
suit, appear on the record.
An account is stated of the value of produce purchased by
Ransom, and forwarded to Thomas J. Davis, and priced as of the 28th
May, 1847, which, in the whole, amounted to $31,879.80. The entire
expenditure in purchasing the produce, including losses, amounted
to the sum of $21,280.43, leaving a profit of $10,599.37. A further
account is stated in detail of purchases of grain amounting to a
large sum. An auditor was appointed by the court, who, in a long
report, states the correspondence between Ransom and Davis, which
conduces to show that Ransom was engaged in purchasing wheat and
other grain, to be forwarded to Davis, who owned a mill in
Georgetown. Exceptions were taken to the report of the auditor, and
the court ordered that the cause be again referred to him with
instructions to take such testimony as may be offered by Ransom, on
the points mentioned in his affidavit filed in the cause, and that
he report to this Court, as soon as convenient, the substance of
such testimony, and what changes, if any, such additional testimony
may render proper in the report heretofore made by said auditor in
reference to said claim.
The auditor returned the additional testimony which he took, but
made no alteration in his former report. It was admitted in the
argument that the estate of Davis was insolvent, and the object of
Ransom seemed to be to enforce his claim against the estate of
Davis in preference to other creditors.
From the record, the nature of the suit, in which Ransom prayed
to become a party, does not appear. It may have been a suit by
other creditors, but no notice is taken of them in the subsequent
proceeding, nor is there any pleading except the petition to be
made a party. This proceeding is irregular and cannot be sustained.
The exceptions to the report of the auditor were overruled by the
circuit court, and the petition of Ransom was dismissed.
Page 59 U. S. 297
Where a chancery suit involves matters of account, the action of
a master should be had in the inferior court, and the items
admitted or rejected should be stated, so that exception may be
taken to the particular items or class of items, and such a case
should be brought before this Court on the rulings of the
exceptions by the circuit court.
The bill is dismissed at the plaintiff's costs, without
prejudice.
