currence of West Virginia, adopted: 'A joint resolution to provide for adjusting with the State of West Virginia the proportion of the public debt of the original State of Virginia proper to be borne by the State of West Virginia, and for the application of whatever may be received from the State of West Virginia to the payment of those found to be entitled to the same,' approved March 6, 1894. A copy of this resolution will be hereinafter shown as an exhibit to this bill, to be read as a part thereof.

"Under this resolution a commission of seven members was appointed for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects expressed therein.

"The efforts made by this commission, acting under the above resolution to bring about a settlement with West Virginia having proved ineffectual, and the overture which the commission, with the active coöperation of the Honorable Charles T. O'Ferral, the then Governor of the Commonwealth, made to the authorities of West Virginia for the purpose of bringing about a friendly adjustment having been declined, the General Assembly of Virginia passed the act approved March 6, 1900, entitled 'An Act to provide for the settlement with West Virginia of the proportion of the public debt of the original State of Virginia proper to be borne by West Virginia, and for the protection of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the premises,' the purpose of which act is sufficiently set forth in its title, and a copy of the act will also be hereinafter shown as one of the exhibits herewith filed.

"(20.) The commission acting under said last mentioned act made most earnest efforts to bring about an amicable adjustment of the matters herein before set forth with West Virginia, but all of their efforts in that behalf proved ineffectual and unavailing. An application to this honorable court being thus left as the only alternative for Virginia, this suit has been instituted at the request and direction of the said commission, and in strict conformity with the provisions of the said act of March 6, 1900, all of which will be more fully and completely VOL. CCVI-20

shown by the report of the said commission dated January 6, 1906, made to the General Assembly of Virginia now in session, a copy of which report and the documents accompanying the same, and referred to therein, will be exhibited as a part of this bill."

'(21)." Enumerates exhibits attached to the bill and prayed to be regarded as part thereof.

"(22.)" The bill prayed: "Forasmuch, therefore, as your oratrix is remediless save in this form and forum, and to the end that the State of West Virginia may be duly served, through her Governor and Attorney-General, with a copy of this bill, your oratrix prays that the said State of West Virginia may be made a party defendant to this bill, and required to answer the same; that all proper accounts may be taken to determine and ascertain the balance due from the State of West Virginia to your oratrix, in her own right and as trustee as aforesaid; that the principles upon which such accounting shall be had may be ascertained and declared, and a true and proper settlement made of the matters and things above recited and set forth; that such accounting be had and settlement made under the supervision and direction of this court by such auditor or master as may by the court be selected and empowered to that end, and that proper and full reports of such accounting and settlement may be made to this court; that the State of West Virginia may be required to produce before such auditor or master, so to be appointed, all such official entries, documents, reports and proceedings as may be among her public records or official files and may tend to show the facts and the true and actual state of accounts growing out of the matters and things above recited and set forth, in order to a full and correct settlement and adjustment of the accounts between the two States; that this court will adjudicate and determine the amount due to your oratrix by the State of West Virginia in the premises; and that all such other and further and general relief be granted unto your oratrix in the premises as the nature of her case may require or to equity may seem meet."

Attached to the bill were the numerous exhibits referred to. The State of West Virginia demurred and assigned special causes as follows:

"First. That it appears by said bill that there is a misjoinder of parties plaintiff and a misjoinder of causes of action. The said bill is brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia to recover debts alleged to be due to her in her own right from the defendant for property and money alleged to have been transferred and delivered to the defendant under certain acts of the legislature passed in 1863, and also, as trustee for the owners of certain certificates mentioned and described in said bill, to have an accounting to ascertain and declare the amount claimed to be due from the defendant as her just proportion of the public debt of the plaintiff prior to the first day of January, 1861.

'Second. That this court has no jurisdiction of either the parties to or the subject matter of this action, because it appears by the said bill that the matters therein set forth do not constitute, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, such a controversy, or such controversies, between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of West Virginia as can be heard and determined in this court, and this court has no power to render or enforce any final judgment or decree thereon.

"Third. That it appears by said bill that the plaintiff herein sues as trustee for the benefit of a number of individuals who are the alleged owners of certain certificates in the said bill set forth and described.

"Fourth. That the said bill does not state facts sufficient to entitle the Commonwealth of Virginia to the relief prayed for, or to any relief, either in her own right or as trustee for the owners of the certificates therein set forth and described.

"Fifth. That it does not appear by said bill that the Attorney General has ever been authorized to institute and prosecute this suit in the name of the Commonwealth of Virginia in her own right, but only as trustee for the use and

Argument for Complainant.

206 U.S.

benefit of the owners of certain certificates mentioned in the act of March 6, 1900, which is referred to and made part of said bill.

"Sixth. That the said bill does not sufficiently and defi-. nitely set forth the claims and demands relied upon, but the allegations thereof are so indefinite and uncertain that no proper answer can be made thereto.

"Seventh. That the allegations in the said bill are not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff therein, either in her own right or as trustee, to an account or to a discovery from this defendant.

"Eighth. That the said bill does not contain any prayer for a judgment or decree or any other final relief against this defendant."

Hearing on the demurrer was had March 11, 12, 1907.

Mr. William A. Anderson, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, and Mr. Holmes Conrad, for complainant:

The definitions of misjoinder under English chancery practice, as well as the practice in this country, show that there is no such vice in the bill, while want of interest by a co-plaintiff in the subject matter is ground of demurrer. Story's Eq. Pl., §§ 231, 232, 508, 509; Mitf. Pl. 160, 161. Plaintiffs who have no common interest, but assert distinct and several claims against one and the same defendant, cannot be joined. Story's Eq. Pl. § 279. On the other hand, where there is a community of interests among co-plaintiffs desiring the same relief against a common defendant, they may be joined. Ware v. Duke of Northumberland, 2 Anstruther's Rep. 469; Brickenhoff v. Browns, 6 Johns. Ch. 139, 151, 152.

It is impossible that there can be any misjoinder of parties plaintiff, because there is only one party plaintiff. Virginia, in her corporate capacity, is the only plaintiff in the suit. She does not sue in any representative capacity, though the bill discloses the fact that, by reason of the arrangements which she has made with the great mass of the holders of the

206 U. S.

Argument for Complainant.

bonds of the old State, she does hold in her possession nearly all of those bonds as a depository, and quoad the custody thereof that she holds them in a fiduciary capacity; but she does not sue as trustee, but sues in her own name, for the purpose of obtaining the equitable relief to which the bill shows that she is fairly entitled.

One interest is that she shall be exonerated, at least to the extent of West Virginia's liability therefor, from any obligation to pay the bonds.

To obtain such just exoneration she has invoked the equitable jurisdiction of this court.

West Virginia is justly liable on many grounds for a just proportion of the public debt of her parent State, Virginia; West Virginia has not only repudiated and openly disavowed all such liability, but she has appropriated to her own use a large amount in value of the public property of Virginia, which Virginia might properly have applied as part of her public assets, to the payment of her public debt; and now, when by this bill in equity Virginia calls on West Virginia to account for the property which she has appropriated and applied to her own uses, and to come in before this court and have her proportion of the public debt ascertained, West Virginia, by her demurrer, protests that the part of the public debt which she owes and the part of the public assets which she has appropriated to her own use are two subjects of complaint so distinct and unconnected as should relieve her from making answer to the bill. This case is entirely different from New York v. Louisiana and New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 78, where neither State had any direct or personal interest in the bonds of Louisiana or in the subject matters of controversy in those suits, but were mere volunteers, selfconstituted trustees, without sustaining any relation, or interest, or obligation, or liability in regard to the bonds, or to any question presented in those causes.

While it may be true that, as to the custody of some of these unsatisfied bonds, Virginia sustains the relation of