
    
      J. C. Norris, Master of the Work House, vs. H. W. Schroeder et ux. et al.
    
    By law, the master of the work-house, in the City of Charleston, is authorized and required to receive all slaves that may be placed in the work-house, by their owners, or by their order; and he is regarded, when in the possession of any slave, by authority from his owner, or other person, not as the agent of him who delivers the slave, but as a stakeholder, for the true owner, whoever he may be.
    
      Before Harper, Ch. at Charleston, July Term, 1841. The following brief of the bill and answers in this case, will be necessary, (together with the circuit decree of the Chancellor,) to a proper understanding of the facts.
    
    The bill states that complainant is master of the work house in Charleston, under the laws of the State, and the City Ordinances: That it is, thereby, made his duty to admit and confine in the work house all slaves, delivered to his charge by order, or in behalf of their owners, and that he is responsible for their escape : That H. W. Schroeder, on the 20th of February, 1841, lodged with complainant, in the work house, a negro slave, named Martha, as the trust property of his wife, Mrs. A. E. Schroeder, and also, at the same time, gave positive instructions, that complainant should not deliver the said slave to anyperson whatsoever, other than to him, Schroeder, or his wife: That complainant did accordingly admit, and confine the said slave, Martha, in the work house, from thence hitherto : That a few days after the reception of the said slave, Martha, in the work house, Miss Ann Bell, caused a demand to be made upon the complainant, to deliver up the said slave Martha, to the said Ann Bell, claiming the slave as her own absolute property, and-forbidding the complainant, to deliver the said slave to any other person : That complainant, not knowing to whom he ought, of right, to deliver up the said slave, has refused to comply with the demands of the said Ann Bell, and still retains the said slave in the work house; and on the 25th of March, 1841, the said Ann Bell sued out of the Court of Common Pleas, a writ of trover against complainant, for the converting and disposing of the said slave, claiming her to be the goods and chattels of the said Ann Bell: That complainant immediately notified the said H. W. Schroeder, of the said action of trover, when he persisted in his instructions to the complainant, not to deliver up the said slave to any person, whatsoever, other than to order of the said Schroeder and wife, and threatens to commence an action against complainant, for the said slave. And the said Schroeder, also-gave notice to complainant; that the said slave, Martha, was derived under a bill of sale, duly recorded, made to Charles C. Chitty, the father of the said Ann E. Schroeder, then an infant, in trust, for the sole use and behoof of the said Ann E. until she should arrive at the age of 21 years, then for her absolutely, discharged from the trust, which age she has not yet attained; and that the said Charles C. Chitty, had departed this life, leaving a will, in which he appointed John W. Chitty, and John C. Lozier, executors thereof, who have duly qualified, and to whom the said H. W. Schroeder, notified complainant, she would apply to commence an action at law, as trustee for her, the said Ann E. Schroeder, if the demand made by the said Ann Bell, was acquiesced in by complainant. That complainant is advised, that he cannot, with safety, deliver up the said slave, to any of the said demandants, but that they ought to be compelled to interplead together touching their rights to the said negro, in order that complainant might know to whom the same ought to be delivered up, and that the said defendants, ought to be restrained, by the order and injunction of this Court, from proceeding in the said action, or commencing any other action or actions against complainant, for any, in respect of the matters aforesaid. And complainant is ready to produce, and has offered to produce, in this Court, and deliver up the said slave, to such of the parties, as shall appear entitled thereto.
    The bill prays, that the said Ann Bell, H. W. Schroeder and wife, John W. Chitty, and J. C. Lozier, executors of Charles C. Chitty, may be decreed to interplead, and settle their rights to the said slave, and that it may be ascertained, to which of them, the said slave Martha, should be delivered up ; and that the said Ann Bell, may be restrained from proceeding in her action of trover, and that Schroeder and wife, maybe restrained from commen-eing proceedings, or prosecuting any action at law, against complainant.
    The answer of Schroeder and wife.
    They admit the complainant to he the master of the work ■house, and the lodging of the slave Martha, in the work house, as the trust property of Ann E. Schroeder, with orders not to deliver her to any one save Schroeder and wife: That on the 30th of March, 1830, Catharine Rou-lain, by a bill of sale, in consideration of $300, conveyed two negro slaves, Martha and her child Mary, to the late Charles C. Chitty, the father of defendant, Ann E. Schro-der, in trust to, and for the sole use and behoof of his daughter, the said Ann Eugenia, (then Chitty,) now Schroeder; she having since intermarried with the co-defendant, K. W. Schroeder, and she being then, and still a minor, under the age of twenty-one years, until she should arrive at the age of twenty-one, then this trust to cease, and the said property to be hers, and her heirs, forever: That the said Charles C. Chitty, as trustee of the said Ann E. (she being still a minor,) on the 18th of May, 1832, without permission of any. Court, authorized to administer the estate of minors, or other lawful authority, sold the said slave Martha, to Jacob De La Motta, for $175: That the said slave, Martha, passed through several hands, and finally passed into the possession of the said Ann Bell, but how, and in what right, these defendants are not informed : That C. C. Chitty died, having left a will, in which he appointed John C. Lozier, and John W. Chitty, executors, who have both qualified and acted thereon.
    These defendants very recently found the .slave, Martha, in the possession of Ann Bell, and, as they owned the daughter, and had a particular desire to keep the mother also, as they had a right to do, the bill of sale to their trustee having been placed on record, and being notice to all the world, seized the said slave, peaceably, as tlieir property, and lodged her in the work house, as stated in the bill, and these defendants are quite willing, that this Court shall take jurisdiction of the complainant’s bill, of interpleader, and adjust, according to law and in equity, tile conflicting rights and interests of the parties to this suit.
    The answer op Miss Ann Bell.
    On the 2d of April, 1840, this defendant purchased the negro, named Martha, from one C. Dutrieux, for $350, and took from him a hill of sale, in which he warranted the said negro, against all persons whomsoever: That this defendant had no notion, whatsoever, of any claims or interest, of H. W. Schroeder, or of any other person, in the property ; and she avers, that she purchased the negro for a fair and valuable consideration, without notice, and she claims to be protected as such purchaser: That immediately after the said purchase, the negro was put in her possession, and has peaceably continued there, until lately, to her great suprise and dissatisfaction, she learned that she had been lodged in the work house, by some person : That, upon demanding her from the master of the work house, together with an explanation of so unauthorized and unjust a proceeding, she was informed that one Schroeder had taken up the negro and lodged her in the workhouse, upon some claim of ownership : That this defendant could not but regard such a proceeding as oppressive and illegal, inasmuch, as this defendant is a perfectly responsible person, known as a resident of the city, against whom an action at law could be brought by any person, having claims upon her ; and that she could not but feel incensed at this summary and improper manner, in which her female servant was taken away from her, without any notice, and lodged in the common place of confinement for all kinds of negroes : That she could not but regard it as tyrannical to the servant, as it was unjust to her, and she therefore demanded, as she had a right to do, that the complainant, the master of the work house, would restore her property to this defendant, which demand he refused to comply with; and, therefore, she commenced an action at law against him, as she has a right to do. That she knows nothing of the claim of said Schroeder and wife ; and she submits that,.as she has the warranty of C. Du-trieux, upon the bill of sale to her, as above mentioned, he is, in fact, the person who is really answerable, in case the claim of the said Schroeder can be established; and that if this Court should hold this defendant bound to inter-plead with the said Schroeder, and entertain the trial of right, that the said C. Dutrieux should be made a party; and defendant claims, that the said negro is her own, absolute property, and that possession thereof forthwith be restored to her.
    The answer op John C. Lozier, and J. W. Chitty, Executors of Charles C. Chitty.
    Defendants are informed and believe, that their testator, on the 30th of March, 1830, purchased a woman, called Martha, and her child Mary, from one Catharine Roulain, for $350, and took a bill of sale to himself, as trustee for, and in behalf of his daughter, Ann Eugenia Chitty — sold Martha, to Jacob De La Motta, for $175, and departed this life. Defendants do not admit, that the complainant’s bill is regular, and insist that as Henry W. Schroeder took the slave out of the peaceable possession of Ann Bell, complainant should have refused to receive the said slave, for safe keeping, as the slave of said Schroeder. They do not admit that Shroeder and wife are entitled to the said slave; and they say, in fact, that the said Ann Eugenia was the natural child of Charles C. Chitty ; that the money which he paid for the said slave was his own money, and not any trust funds, and that they are advised, that the legal title of the said slave was in the said C. C. Chitty, and that by his bill of sale, he conveyed a good right to the purchaser of the slave : That by his will, he provided liberally for the said Ann Eugenia Chitty, and- that if he be considered as a trustee for the said Ann Eugenia, for the purchase money, for which he sold the said negro, these defendants are advised, that he should also be considered as having laid out the same in trust for her, in the property which he purchased, after selling the said slave,, and devised to the said Ann Eugenia, and her brother Alonzo La Fayette Chitty. That, in fact, after selling the said slave Martha, the testator purchased a slave, named Julianne, and afterwards sold Julianne, and purchased a slave named Margaret, whom he bequeathed to Mrs. Brown, for life, remainder to the said Eugenia, and Alonzo LaFay-■ette, and these defendants have no doubt, that the said Charles C. Chitty, whenhe declared a trust for the slave, Martha, for the said Ann Eugenia, meant to reserve to himself the legal estate and power of disposing of the property, and making other provisions for his child, according to circumstances, and he actually informed this defendant, John C. Lozier, that he intended to purchase another negro, in the place of the said slave, Martha.
    Chancellor’s decree: This case came on to be heard upon the bill and answer of the several parties, whereupon, after hearing the argument of counsel, it is ordered and decreed, that the bill be dismissed ; that the master of the work house, James C. Norris, the complainant, do pay the costs of the defendants, the executors of Chitty ; and that the defendants, H. W. Schroeder, and A. E. Schroeder, pay the costs of Miss Ann Bell, their co-defendant.
    Wednesday, 7th July, 1841.
    The complainant, James C. Norris, appeals from the foregoing decree, upon the following grounds :
    1. That under the statements in the bill and answers, and admitted at the hearing, the bill of interpleader was the proper remedy of the complainant, under the circumstances, and the bill should have been sustained.
    2. That the decree, dismissing the bill with costs against the complainant, is contrary to the rules of equity, where a bill of interpleader is filed to restrain opposing claimants of the same property from proceeding, against an innocent bailee.
    The defendants, H. W. Schroeder and wife, appealed from the above decree, on the grounds:
    1. That the costs of Ann Bell were improperly cast on her co-defendant Schroeder, because, in his Honor’s own opinion, the legal estate in the negro in dispute was in Schroeder, and it is unjust to mulct him, for asserting his right by the peaceable seizure of his own property.
    2. That the said costs, were further improperly cast on said defendants, because Ann Bell, herself, caused the proceedings in Equity, by unnecessarily suing complainant at law, instead of Schroeder.
    3. That the said costs were further improperly so cast, because, in his Honor’s opinion, the complainant had no ground for his bill of interpleader, (which was) filed by the order of the City Council of Charleston, and the costs of this untenable suit, and the costs of all the defendants thereto, should have been awarded against him.
    4. That the decree was contrary to equity.
    Eckhard Sol. for Norris,
    cited 6 Johnson’s, Ch. 454. In what case bill of interpleader lies, 2 page, 209..
    The master of the work house is a public agent and is bound to receive all negroes offered to him for safe keeping. Act 1783, p. 98, sec. 4. 7 Stat. at Large 90, sec. 4, directs that the work house shall be used as a place of confinement and correction. City Ord. 256, sec. 5,-vs. Bris-ter; McMullen, 133. 5 Cond. Eng. Ch. Rep. 345, 1 Faunt. 177. Bill of interpleader lies at the suit of public agents. 2 Story’s Eq. 123, 122. 1 Ca — m, 692. 1 Cox. 114. 6 Cond. Eng. Ch. 299. 2 Bus & MU, 606. Story on bailment, 84. As to costs — the stake holder is not liable for costs, Mad. Ch. 185.
    Yeadon, Sol. for complainant,
    2 Nott and McCord, 68.
    Memminger, defendants
    Sol. Story Eq. PI. 238, 240, Lee, 293-7
   Curia, per Johnston, Chancellor.

The position of the plaintiff is, that-he is, involuntarily and innocently, in possession of property to which he makes no claim, and may be vexed by having several processes, in the names of different claimants, going on against him at the same time: and he comes into Court, upon what has been recognized as the most obvious equity, to insist that those persons claiming that, to which he asserts no rights, should settle the contest among themselves, and not with him, or at his expense, or hazard. (Vide Langston vs. Boylston, 2 Ves. Jr. 1091.) It is not doubted that a bill of interpleader cannot be sustained by one who stands on the foot of a a wrong doer, nor by one who has obtained possession by collusion, nor, in general,,by a person who holds, as the mere agent of the claimants, unless there be some degree of privity, between the claimants themselves. But neither wrong, nor collusion has been imputed to this plaintiff, nor has the case been sufficiently examined, to determine what privity of contract exists between those, to whom the plaintiff, considered as a private bailee, stands exposed at law. Where tlie case stands upon the possession of. a private person, there must, generally, be such a connection between the claimants, as to exhibit him in the light of a stake holder; and a factor, wharfinger, ware-house-man, or any other person, standing in this condition, may claim relief from the difficulties of his position. These are familiar cases; and bills have been sustained, as in the cases of Richard vs. Salter, (6 Johns Ch. R. 445.) Pearson vs. Cardon, (4 Sim. 218, sc. 6, Cond, E. C. R. 108,) where, although each claimant relied on a distinct right, one of them, by the nature of his claim, must be taken to have admitted, that he had put it in the power of the other to exhibit the property as his own: and thus impose an uneonscientious responsibility, upon third person. But where none of these circumstances obtain, a bill of inter-pleader will not, in general, lie; as was determined in Cooper vs. Tastel, (1 Talmyn, 177, sc. 5, Cond. E. Ch. R. 345. That was the case of a private ware-house-man, and the bill was dismissed. But a distinction was then taken, which has .been recognized and approved in all the authorities, and it must determine this case, independent of all considerations of privity. It is this, that where the ground of the bill is the possession of a public agent, who does not take possession at his own will, but has no option upon the subject, he shall be regarded, not as the agent of him who delivers the property, but as a stake holder for the true owner, whoever he may be. The ground of the distinction is stated by an eminent elementary author, (2 Story Com. Ch. 20, § 818,) to be the'policy of protecting public agents, in the discharge of their duty, from the burthens of suits, in which they have no interest, and have undertaken no private trusts. It appears to us, that the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of this principle. He is the keeper of the work house in this city, and was bound to receive the slave delivered to him, by Schroeder. This institution was, by the Act of 1768, (7 Stat. at Large, 91,). directed to be kept, exclusively, as a house of correction and confinement. By the Act of 1783, § 4. (7 St. at Large,, 98,) incorporating the city, the City Council were invested with authority, to make such Ordinances, <fcc. respecting negroes, as should appear to them requisite, for the conveniency of the said city, or for preserving peace, order, or good government within the same; ánd they did by Ordinances of the 8th of May, 1807, (City Laws, 255,) declare it to be “the duty of the master of the work house, to admit and confine in the same, all slaves delivered into his charge or custody, by order, or in behalf of ■ their respective owners,” and in a subsequent clause,-they provided for restricting chastisement within certain limits, when the object w'as not only confinement but correction. Now it appears to us, that the plaintiff had no option to refuse to receive the slave, when delivered to him by Schroeder; and it would be most rigorous to say, that acting in a public capacity, under a rule of duty so inexorable, he should be made the victim of contending parties. Bis case is not like that of a sheriff, who has an option, to act or not to act, and therefore, is a wrong doer, if he seizes property, not liable to.the process in his hands. ' Slingsby vs. Boulton, (1 Ves. and B. 334.) He stands, rather as a jailor, bound to receive fugitive slaves committed to his charge; and whose right to be-protected against- adverse claimants of the property placed in his custody, it is presumed, none will doubt. It is ordered, that the decree be set aside and. the case remanded to the Circuit Court for trial.

J. JOHNSTON,

We concur.

David Johnson, Benj. F. Dun-kin.  