New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-30

\ Of having been sanctioned by the majority of tn
houscholders, and insisted that tho plaintiff had n
night to institute this suit aims. the wishes Of tha
majority, and that if there had been any abuse tn
| only mode Of redrresing it ON information filed b,
the Attorncy General.
The Vice -Where matter ia necessarily
! injurious 10 the right the majority OF the
persons intere-ted neither the wrong. mol
deprive all other parties OF their remedy BY -si|
rThe Attorney General may file an information IN
case like thu in respect Of the public nature OF the
| right and the proceeding must be by the AHofney-
General when al persons Interested are parties 10 inc
abuse; bet when that is not the case am not aware
Of any principle authority which makes IL necessary
| that he should BE- before the Court
The other case referred to ~ that on r,ay ag'.
Chaplin SIM & Stew, 26; and sustains the same
| principle. ,: A..
| N;Ibsu act sharpe Is Barb. 1873 in which th, Court
again held that the plaintiffs, being taxpayers to
| large amount having such an interest in preventing
the grant from the Corporation under consideration
that case from being carried into effect had right
10 institute that suit in their names and that an
Injunction should issue 10 restrain it.
The same subject again carefully and elabo-
retely reviewed in the case OF De Baum and Thistle
sgt the Mayor &c. in Is Borb. 392 and the doctrine
reafhrmed that person owning real estate in the
City Of New-York, and paying taxes therein may
prosecute action against the Corporation on behalf
Of himself and other taXpaying citizens to eniOn the
Corporation those acting under them from e1pend-
ing the money raised by taxation, in repairngor paw
ing street IN a manner contrary TO an express law
and tending 10 add 10 the taxes Of the inhabitants.
The same point was ruled in Stuyvesant sgt Pear
sail, 10 Barb, AI. See alsO, to the same point
Roosevelt AIT. Farnum, - How. Pr Rep. 49,
1t must therefore be REGARDED a. the settled law of
this Count that il viii grant its aid 10 restrain by in
junction the imposition If any tax burdens the
taxpayers q this city, contrary to law on complaint
filed by any taxpayer his own behalf, well a.
others similarly Interested, or on behalf Of any cor
poraOr OF said city, having interest in the Corpo
rate property thereof on similar complaint. showing
an dtrpr a If he ia
property.
The next question which presents tref is does this
complaint show sufficient facts to bring the present
plaiIufT within the principl" of these decisions II
will be Observed that in all these cases the plaintiffs
claim the Intervention of the Court well their
own behalf IA that of all Others of like interest IL
this an essential avermenl Ii is omitted from the
present complaint and the relief il only asked for by
the plaintiff for himself alone.
The rule in reference to the proper and necessary
parties IT, that all must be made parties who have
interest in the result and when great many ndvdu
ais Interested, the Court will often permit
few to represent the whole; but the bill should
pressly state, that it filed rs well OH behalf of
other members, as those who really made COM
plainans. Edwards on Parties, p. 40i. One egatee
may for his legacy, without naming the others in.
ieiesed in the same fund but the plaintiff must sue
as well his own behalf of all Others similarly
situated.
Brown agt. Ricketts,, John Oh. r. $50. and cases
there Cited.)
In Chspcey w. May, Pr. in CHI, Finch. ed, 592, a
bin war brought by the then Treasurer and Mana ger of
the Temple Mills Brass Works, in behalf of themselves
and all others propreos and partners in the first I'M
dertaking except the defendants, whs the late
Treasurer and Managers being about thirteen in num-
Der; and il 10 call them to account for several
interpretations, nsmanagements and entertainments
of the cOpartnershp property in the South Sea times
TO the value of g. 600 ana upward the Copartner-
ship consisted originally but OF eighteen shares, but
those eighteen shares in the year 1870, split and
divided into 500.
The defendants dcmuTed for that all the rest of the
propretors not made parties, and so every one
had the right to call them to an account,
and then they might be harrassed and perpeXed with
multiplicity OF suits but the demurrer was disallowed,
because it in LehaJ Of themselves and al others,
the proDrictOrs OF He undertaking, except the
defendants, and all the rest in effect parties.
See also LLOYD vs. Loaring YES. Jun. 773. Cock
burn vs. Thompson, 16 Vesey, 32l. CoOper's Eq. ri.
40, Il. Good vs.. Blewitt, Is Vesey Jun. D7 In this
the bill originally did not contain the allegation
the bill in behalf Of the plaintiff ard all others.
but leave was given to amend by introducing state
ment that the bill was on behalf of the plaintiff and all
Others Of similar interest. so also Smth SWORN
stedt Is How. 2SS Brown Robertson, ~ How.
lSO In Light vs. Thomas. = Tesey Junr Rep. 81,
sustained a demurrer 10 bill, which omitted to stale
that it was filed behalf of the plaintiff aud the rtst
having similar Interests. In Baldwin W. Lawrence
Sim * Stew Is the bill was dismissed because It was
not filed by the plaintiffs behalf of themselves and
all others equally interested with them. And IN
Douglass VS. Ilasfan, ID. lSi, the Vice Chancellor
sustained n demurrer and dismissed a bill on the
ground that the bill ought to have been filed by some
Of Them on behalf of themsclves and others
The rule is also well laid down in Ling agt. Young.
Simons x Stewart, $50
The case Of Macbride act. Lindsey, How, J1l-JS,
seems 10 be quite in point Bill filed by plaintiff
shareholder in company, against several defendants
also share holders; plaintiff stating that there were
others and that he Ignorant OF hem and that inc
defendants had refused 10 disclose their names 10
this bill the defendants demurred In support OF the
he Cps,sW A.
ONLY that OF every other member Of the Corporation
who had sustained the injury. and he could no,
sue alone
Vice-C Chancellor says that the case therefore, l. one
in which the plaintiff has q common 'interest IN that
point Of view with the other parties who will be az
fected by tho relief which he Has prayed, and when
he has prayed for himself exclusively Now. am OF
opinion that he cannot obtain such relief IN the aD-
sence Of the other parties who are interested ID tnS
concern. If he has n common interest with all the
other partners in the concern, he must sue IA behalf
of himself and all those other partners
Demurrer allowed
Court hold in that that the general rule in equity
is that oil persons materially Interested in the subject
matter OF the suit however numerous, must be made
parties plaintiff or defendant.
The case before falls within the exception to the
general rule, on account of number aud part beng
unknown.
Rut the bill has not been framed to meet the cNcep
ton II should have been filled for ald on behalf OF
Diminishing the bill was affirmed.
The only which have been able to ind, Su'-
tanning doctrine apparently adverse to this uniform
current of DECISIONS both in this country aud in En-
gland and the established practice in the Court OF
Chancery there and in own Courts Is that Of
Dodge agt. Woolsey, Is How. 2l In thatcase blu
was fled by single stakeholder Of Bank. to restrain
by an injunction tax collector OF the state OF ONO,
from the collection of tax. on the ground that the
law importing it unconstitutional and VOID. The
Circuit Court OF the United States granted the nanc-