The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-04-30

soon after WA passed In 1884, one Basnsil VINO had
been removed for misconduct from sf1ce which be
mol brougu, against le defendant Underwood who was
the then under the act for damages and costs
the amount Of fSoo In March 1872 Underwood resigned
the easurerhp and the other defendant Smith, succeeded
him. Smith, out al money arising from the rates made
pursuant to e act, pad fi07 los. I'd. 10 Underworld
The bin was flied by nine persons who were house
holders and parshoners within the borough OF Stafford
on behalf Of themselves and all other househodcrs and
parishioners within the borough excepting Smith and I'm
derwood and after stating TO the effect before mentioned
II alleged that the last mentioned payment misappl
cation Of the rates that the househoders being pashoners
within the borough Of Stafford, who interested in
the aotmens, very numerous, and that the plain
tins unable 10 make all OF them parties 10 the
suit II prayed for account a the rates received
by the defendants during their respective treasurer
ships, and that the balance remaining their hands
might applied purposes Of the act and thai they
might be decreed TO replace what they had mpped and
restrained from further misappyiug the moneys arising
from the rates Both OF the defendants stated in their
that the action for libel of acts done BY
Underwood, in obedience to orders made BY the house
holders present at certain meetings. and that the costs OF
the action also had been paid out Of the rates obedience
TO orders made in like manner, and had been allowed
the Treasurer in passing his accounts, and that
the majority OF the -tousehodets were eyerse 70
the institution OF this suit and approved OF the
acts complained OF in the bill These statements
supported by evidence For the plaintiffs il cOnended
that the heusehodcrs had no discretionary power as 70 the
application Of the rates. that they could apply them 10
other purposes thai those prescribed BY the act that by
the msappcaaion complained Of In the BILL all the house
collected from them than would have been required for
the purposes Of the and that therefore, Of them
ns a on s
having been sanctioned by the majority Of Tho household
ders and insisted that the plaintiffs bad right TO uu
this suit against the wishes Of that majority, and
that if there had been any abuse, the only mode OF
dressing information aed by the Ateorny Gene
era Inc Vice Chancelor-where a matter is necessarily
injurious the right tho majority Of the persons
interested neither excuse The wrong nor deprive
all other parties OF their remedy by suit The Attorney
r. IL xcn~ .,A
respect Of the public Of the right proceed
ing be by the Attorney General, when all persons
interested parties to the abuse but when that IS mot
the am not aware Of any principle or authority
which makes il necessary that he should be before the
Court The other referred 10 Is that OF Gray Chap
lin, SIM Stew 2o'; and sustans the same principles.
This doctrine again reviewed in this Court Mhau
Sharpe Is Barb 100, in which this Court again held
that the plaintiffs being payers large amount hav
ing such interest in preventing the grant from the Cor
porson under consideration In that case, from being
RED into effect had right 10 institute that suit In their
Names and thai injunction should issue restrain
IT, The subject again carefully and deliberately
reviewed in the OF De Baum and Thistle agt the
that person owning real estate in he city Of New York
the torp"fs,On, co behalf q himself and other TAX pay
under them from expanding the money raised by taxa
ton, in repairing paving street In manner contrary
% an express law, and tending TO add 70 the taxes
Suyveesnt Pesrssu IL Barb "a (See also, 70 the
same point Roosevelt varnum, II How Pr Rep 4e9)
III
Court thai will grant its aid 70 restrain BY injunction the
imposition of any tax burhen the tax payers Of this
city contrary 70 law on complaint ned BY any tar payer
behalf Of corporation OF said city having interest
in the corporate property thereof similar complaint,
property The next que aon which presents itself is does
this complaint show sufficient facts 10 bring the present
plaintiff within the principle Of these decislonsS will Do
observed that In all these the plaintiffs claim the
PREVENTION Of the Court, well their behalf
that Of all others OF like interest Is this essential
Ia
the relief only asked for BY Tho plaintiff for himself alone
The rule reference 70 the proper and necessary parties
the result and when great many individuals int
rested the Court viii often permit few represent the
whole: but the bill should expressly state thai y was
fled well behalf Of other members those who
One lesaiee may sue his legacy without naming The
others Interested in the same fund; but the plaintiff must
sue As well on his own behalf OF all others similarly
situated drown Ricketts,, John On. X. $50, and
Finch ed sea- bin was SrousS, BY the ihen treasurer
and manager OF the Temple Mills brass works. In behalf Of
themselves and all others ropretors and partners IN the
late treasurer and managers, being about IL in numbers
and was TO call them account for several misa
the copsrtnershp property IN the south Sea times
10 the value Of E,O0O0 and upwards; the
partnership consisted originally but Of IS shares but
those Is shares In the year I'D split and divided
into 500 defendants demurred for that an the OF
the propdeors not male parties and 70 every one
bad rights call upon them 70 account, and
then they might be harrsssed and perpexed with multi
plicity OF suits the demurrer disaowed because
Il was behalf OF themselves and all others The propr
tors the undertaking, except the defendants, and
Joaring, YES. Jun. 7'3 Cockbvrn VS.. Thompson, 10
B ssssy 10 Is vesey Jun sgj. In this Case tie
bin originally did no, contain Me alegatoo that
The bill was IN behalf Of the ps.aam and
that the bill on behalf OF the plaintiff
and all others OF similar interest," So also smith vs.
sso In Light Va Thomas, vesey Junr Rep 512
tanned demurrer TO bill which omitted 10 state that
il filed behalf Of the Plaintiff and the rest having
similar interests. In BALDWIN vs. Lawrence, Sim 4
Stew. Is, the bill dismissed, because was not nled
by the plaintiffs behalf Of themselves and all others
equally interested with them. And In Douglass Has
fall 10 lss the Vice Chancellor sustained demurrer
and dismissed b tho ground that The bill osghi "
and others The rule IL also well laid down In Ling vs.
Young samons Stewart $50 The case u Macbride
Lindsey How GA 5s5 seems TO be quite In point Bill
fled by plaintiff, a shareholder In company, against
several defendants also Shareholders plaintiff stating that
there others, and that he ignorant Of them and
that the defendants had refused 10 disclose their
To this bin the Defendants demurrcd. In support Of the
demurrer II Was eilegei'thai the plaintiffs
only that Of every other member q the Corporation who
had the injury and he could not alone
Vice Chsnceor says, tie CASE therefores one 10 which
the plaintiff having common interest 10 thai point OF vew
which he prayed and which he has prayed FOR himself
Exclusively: Now OF opinion thai he cannot obtain
such rebel In the sb-cuce 81 e other PARTIES who are in
tsrcsed In this he has common interest with
all The other partners In the concern be must on behalf
Of hself and sthose other partners Demurrer allowed
- also Whine, va Mayo, Is III Eep. Isl The Court
bold In thai case ibsi The general rule m equity Is that
all perrops materially Interested In the subject matter or
the suit however must DO made parties, plain
tin or defendant. The cage before US Falls within
the exception the general rule, account OF number
and part being unknown Bat, The bill has MOI been
framed ~ the exception should have been hied
for and on behalf OF all the other communicate mem
bsrs, and the Decree dlsmissing the bill sarmed
The only which have hccu able TO sd, sustaining
doctrine apparently adverse 70 this uniform current %
decisions, bah in this country end in fnghnd and The g.
blished practice In The Court 81 Chancery there and In
courts, " that Of Dodge wooey, Is Hos. 32l
In that bill ned by slngie STOCKHOLDERS Of bank
restrain by Injunction TAX collector o. The sie a Ohio
from the collection Of tax, the ground thai the lay i'm
posing II unconstitutional and void. The circuit
tou o. thc United states granted the Injunction and the
supreme Court Affirmed tho order. Tie precise point
under consideration does not seem " have arisen
that case, and may, perhaps, be reconced with the
authorities before referred 10. n would n hrst
blush conflict with them but " does am satisfied
that the weighs of authority Is entirely with the
propi sion that plaintiff who seeks the aid Of Court q
Equity IN like the present must aver hsi he nes
his cornplat net only In his behalf but that u ell
Others similarly situated. Such avermeot h essential
20 complete d<ermnaon Of ail The rights affected by
tho suit, A has been well observed, without II, tho de