Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the executors and legatees under a will that it prayed to have set aside, another defendant who had a deed from the testator which it prayed should be cancelled.s6 Nor a bill to set aside transactions which form a series of acts connected with the same fraudulent design.37 For example: creditors' bills to reach property fraudulently transferred to different corporations, the stock in which is owned and controlled by the judgment debtor,38 and, to reach property, different parts of which have been sold to several defendants,39 were held not to be multifarious; but where, in the same case, the complainant had obtained judgments against different defendants, it was held that he could not join in the same bill prayers to set aside as fraudulent several conveyances made by them of different property.40 So were a bill filed by an assignee in bankruptcy against all the incumbrancers of his assignor's estate, some but not all of whom had liens upon the same property, to set aside their liens as fraudulent, and to have the property sold for the common benefit of the creditors; a bill filed by the beneficiary under several deeds of trust, some upon different parts of the same property, and one covering the entire property, against the trustees, the trustor, and the different persons claiming liens upon it,42 to set aside a will and deed, executed through the fraud and undue influence of one defendant, although other defendants claimed through him, different interests in the property in question; 43 a bill filed by one of the next of kin against both an administrator and his sureties, to

[blocks in formation]

37 Field v. Western Life Indemnity Co., 166 Fed. 607.

38 Fowler v. Palmer, C. C. A., 160 Fed. 1.

39 Hultberg v. Anderson, 170 Fed. 657; U. S. v. Rea-Reed Mill & Elevator Co., 171 Fed. 501.

40 Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding, 166 Fed. 933.

41 McLean v. Lafayette Bank, 3 McLean, 415. See also Jones v. Slauson, 33 Fed. 632; Potts V. Hahn, 32 Fed. 660; Pullman V.

41

Stebbins, 51 Fed. 10. Contra, Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen (Mass.) 587. In Mississippi a stockholder's bill was sustained which sought to set aside two separate deeds of trust executed by the corporation where one of the defendants owned a number of the bonds secured by each deed. Hardie v. Bulger, 66 Miss. 577.

42 Grant v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., 121 U. S. 105, 30 L. ed. 905. See Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. 10; Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis & N. C. Transp. Co., 10 Fed. 596; s. c., 120 U. S. 166, 30 L. ed. 621.

43 Wiliams v. Crabb, C. C. A., 59

:

obtain the plaintiff's share of the estate; 44 a creditor's bill against the members of two different firms, and the personal representatives of those who were dead, when some were members of both; 45 a bill to set aside an assignment of one partner's interest in the firm and then to divide the assets.46 But it has been held that a bill is multifarious and demurrable when it seeks to enjoin several persons from suing to recover damages from the defendants because of the same alleged act of negligence. Or a bill filed to enjoin different actions upon promissory notes transferred by independent transactions to the different defendants and which had been obtained from the plaintiff by the same fraud.48 Or a bill to enjoin two separate suits brought by different plaintiff's upon independent causes of action by the same attorney under agreement that they would sue simultaneously.49 And a suit to restrain the extraction of oil from the complainant's land which joined with the trespassing extractors companies to whom the oil was sold by them.50 A bill to enforce an equitable title, such as a trust,51 or to remove a cloud upon a complainant's title,52 may also seek partition after the primary relief has been established, provided that no defendants need to be joined who are not proper parties to a suit for the principal relief. A bill was sustained which sought partition and also the cancellation of tax deeds upon the common property held by strangers to the partition.53

Persons who are acting in concert as employees or directors of the same corporation in the infringement of a patent or trade

L.R.A. 425, 117 Fed. 193, 202;
James v. City Investing Co., 188

Fed. 513.

44 Payne v. Hook, 7 Wall. 425.

45 Nelson v. Hill, 5 How. 127, 12 L. ed. 81. See also Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 333, 11 L. ed. 622. But see Griffin v. Merrill, 10 Md. 364.

46 Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandford Ch. (N. Y.) 485.

47 Vandalia Coal Co. v. Lawson, App. Indiana, Jan. 29, 1909, 87 N. E. Rep. 47.

48 Warnock Uniform Co. v. John D. Garifalos and Max Kobre, 224 N. Y. 522.

[ocr errors]

49 Robinson v. Wemmer, 253 Fed. 790.

50 U. S. v. Thirty-Two Oil Co., 242 Fed. 730.

51 Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342, 358, 41 L. ed. 739, 744; Briges v. Sperry, 95 U. S. 461; Hayes' Appeal, 123 Pa. St. 110; Hayes v. Heyer, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 517. But see Belt v. Bowie, 65 Md. 350.

52 Vreeland v. Vreeland, 48 N. J. L. 56; s. c., 24 Atl. 551. But see Robinson v. Springfield Co., 21 Fla. 203.

53 Ulman v. Jaeger, 67 Fed. 980.

mark,54 or who are charged with using a corporation as the means of such an infringement,55 or, it was held, the manufacturer and sellers of the same articles,56 may be joined with the corporation as defendants to a suit for an injunction and an accounting; but it has been held that a bill cannot join complainants against different violators of the same patent57 or copyright,58 when their infringements were not performed in confederacy with each other. But the soundness of the decision last cited has been doubted by Judge Story 59 and it was distinguished by Chancellor Kent.60 It was held that a bill against an interfering patentee was multifarious when it joined the commissioner of patents as a defendant and prayed for a reissue.61 A bill of peace may be filed to dispose of the claims of a number of defendants, which all depend on the determination of a single question of fact or law.62 Such bills have been maintained when

[blocks in formation]

55 Nerve Food Co. v. Baumbach, 32 Fed. 205; California F. S. Co. v. Improved F. S. Co., 51 Fed. 296.

56 Capewell Horse Nail Co. V. Green, C. C. A., 188 Fed. 20.

57 Jewell v. City of Philadelphia, 186 Fed. 639; Edison v. AllisChalmers Co., 191 Fed. 837; Climax Lock & Ventilator Co. v. Ajax Hardware Mfg. Co., 192 Fed. 126; Taggart v. Bremner, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 544.

58 Dilly v. Doig, 2 Ves. Jr. 486. See Thomas H. El. Co. v. Sperry El. Co., 46 Fed. 75.

59 Story's Eq. Pl., §§ 277, 278. 60 Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 J. Ch. (N. Y.) 139, 155. See Foxwell v. Webster, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 137.

61 Gold v. Gold, 181 Fed. 544. 62 Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619, 11 L. ed. 402; U. S. v. Curtner, 26 Fed. 296, 298; Hyman v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. 329. Such are a bill by a parson or lord of a manor to establish a claim against all of his parishioners. Brown v. Vermuden, 1 Chan. Cas. 272. Or tenants, Con

yers v. Lord Abergavenny, 1 Ark. 285; a bill by the owner of a fishery, Mayor of York v. Pilkington, 1 Atk. 284; or a water-right, Union Mill S. M. Co. v. Dangberg, 81 Fed. 73; to establish his claim against a number of riparian owners. Or by the owner of a fishery, to enjoin, from the use of the same, several persons who claim the right under a State statute, and who commit trespass upon the land of plaintiff, which are only incidental to their fishing. Percy Summer Club v. Astle, 145 Fed. 53; and to prevent injury to the stream, Woodruff V. North Bloomfield G. M. Co., 16 Fed. 25; Pacific L. S. Co. v. Handley, 98 Fed. 327; Warren v. Parkhurst, 186 N. Y. 45, L.R.A. (N. S.) 1149, 78 N. E. 579, 9 Ann. Cas. 512. But see Illinois Steel Co. v. Schweder, 133 Wis. 561, 14 L.R.A. (N. S.) 239, 126 Am. St. Rep. 977, 113 N. W. 51; criticised 21 Law Review, 200. But a bill to enjoin the owners of a mill from floating logs over complainants' dam, and to recover damages for previous floatage, which joined as defendants former owners of the

filed by a railroad company against several ticket-scalpers to enjoin their sale of tickets which by their terms could not be transferred, and the use of which could only be accomplished by a fraud.63 To prevent several hackmen from congregating on the sidewalk adjacent to its station.64 To enjoin different abutters from interfering with a right of way,65 or different riparian owners from polluting a stream.66 To enjoin different smelters from injuring the complainant's crops.67 The owners of several mines were allowed to join in a suit to restrain different assayers from buying ore from laborers employed by the complainants, although there was no concert of action among the defendants in their various purchases.68 Bills have been sustained when filed: To restrain the tax collectors of different counties from levying taxes separately assessed, but part of each of which was to be paid to the State, and the validity of all of which depended upon the construction of a single statute.69 By a city to establish its claim to a tax against several of the class liable to the same.70 To quiet a title against a number of claimants to land in severalty, the validity of the separate title of each of whom depends upon the construction of one special statute or the validity or construction of the same document 72 or proceeding.73

mill, was held to be multifarious. Allison V. Davidson (Tenn. Ch. App.) 39 S. W. 905. See Carmichael v. Texarkana, 94 Fed. 561. See supra, § 116.

63 Bitterman v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 52 L. ed. 171; Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Caffrey, 129 Fed. 770; Pennsylvania Co. v. Bay, 150 Fed. 770.

64 Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U. S. 279, 50 L. ed. 192.

65 Louisville & N. A. Co. v. Smith, C. C. A., 128 Fed. 1.

66 Woodruff V. No. Gravel Co., 16 Fed. 25.

Bloomfield

67 Am. Smelting & Refining Co. v. Godfrey, C. C. A., 158 Fed. 225, 89 C. C. A., 139.

68 Goldfield Consol. Mines Co. V. Richardson, 194 Fed. 198, reversed C. C. A., 202 Fed. 637.

71

69 Union Pac. R. Co. v. McShane, 3 Dill, 303. But see supra, § 140. 70 London v. Perkins, 2 Brown Parl. Cas. 652.

71 Heckman v. U. S., 224 U. S. 413, 56 L. ed. 820; modifying and affirming U. S. v Allen, C. C. A., 179 Fed. 13, which reversed U. S. v. Allen, 171 Fed. 907; U. S. v. Flournoy L. S. & R. E. Co., 69 Fed. 886; Central Pacific R. Co. v. Dyer, 1 Saw. 641; see Osborne v. Wisconsin Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. 824; supra, § 140.

72 Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619, 11 L. ed. 402; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352, 17 L. ed. 91; Hyman v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. 329; U. S. v. Curtner, 26 Fed. 296; U. S. v. Rea-Read Mill & Elevator Co., 171 Fed. 501. But see Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Quigley, 181 Fed. 190.

73 Ulman v. Iaeger, 67 Fed. 980.

A bill is not multifarious when brought to enjoin several members of a trade union or other persons from acts of violence or other trespasses in furtherance of a strike.74 But it was held that the claimant of a large tract of land, separate parts of which were in the possession of different persons claiming title in various ways, could not enforce his rights against them all in a single bill.75

Where the evidence did not justify a charge of combination made in the bill, it was dismissed for multifariousness upon the hearing.76

§ 142. Multifariousness without misjoinder of parties. The Equity Rules of 1912 provide: "The plaintiff may join in one bill as many causes of action, cognizable in equity, as he may have against the defendant. . . If it appear that any

such causes of action cannot be conveniently disposed of together, the court may order separate trials."1 This seems to abrogate the old doctrine of equitable practice, that a bill was bad for multifariousness when two or more distinct and uncon

But bills were held to be multifarious when brought against thirtyfour defendants to enforce thirtyfour separate, although similar, contracts, Cheney v. Goodwin, 88 Me. 563; S. C., 34 Alt. 420; against fifteen defendants to cancel separate notes severally held by them, some of which were alleged to be forgeries and the others obtained by fraud, the forger and defrauder being a stranger to the suit, Scott V. McPartland, 70 Fed. 280; to enjoin several landowners from suing plaintiff because of his alleged nuisance, Ducktown Sulphur, etc., Co. v. Fain, 109 Tenn. 56, 70 S. W. 813. See So. Penn. Oil Co. v. Calf Creek O. & G. Co., 140 Fed. 507, and to enjoin different persons from suing a telephone company in tort for removing telephones from their separate

premises. Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Williamson (Miss.), 57 So. 559; following Tribette v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 70 Miss. 182, 19 L.R.A. 660, 35 Am. St. Rep. 642, 12 So. 32; overruling Whitlock v. Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. Co., 91 Miss. 779, 45 So. 861. See Harv. Law Rev., XXV, 559.

74 Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' Int. Union, 72 Fed. 695; Casey v. Cincinnati Typ. Union, 12 L.R.A. 193, 45 Fed. 135; Arthur v. Oakes, C. C. A., 25 L.R.A. 414, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 744, 9 Am. Crim. Rep. 169, 63 Fed. 310; supra, § 115 infra, $ 276.

75 Buchanan Co. v. Adkins, C. C. A., 175 Fed. 692.

76 Coe v. Turner, 5 Conn. 86. But see infra, § 143.

§ 142. 1 Eq. Rule 26.

« ForrigeFortsett »