The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07

to try title against any one whom ne hnds 10
possession OF the land or, if he find IL unoccu.
pied, may take possession under his claim OF
title and put the adverse claimant to his legal
remedy.
The several motions made in behalf Of the
plaintiff must be denied.
CAROLINE CARSON vs.. ALEXANDER ROBERTSON
ET AL.
In this case the only question is as to par
ties, and We are called upon to meet it at the
threshold. The objection Of the want Of par
ties may be taken at any Time in the progress
Of cause, and even 10 the appellate court.
The objection will be disregarded whenever
taken, il it appears that the parties are not
necessary, or if. although convenient and un-
der some clreu Instances necessary, they cannot
be made. without depriVing the court OF jurs-
dction. On the other hand, when it appears that
no final decree can be made without material
prejudice to the interests of parties not before
the court, the court will not proceed without
them, even though such parties are beyond
the reach Of it's process, OF cannot be made
without ousting the jurisdiction.
These are general rules, and they apply to
courts Of the United States as fully as to the
courts Of the States. In administering these
rules, however, the courts Of The United States
are always careful to see that no citizen OF q
Stats, other than that in which the defendants
reside, shall invoke their Jurisdiction in vain,
unless it is obviously impossible to protect the
interests Of the bsent defendants in their de-
crees Th, only question here is whether
there is any such obvious impossibility in this
case. 1t is objected, IN the first place, that
the partners OF the defendant, McBurney, are
indispensable parties. But it is plain upon
the bill and answer that in all the transactions
swhi. b form the subject Of litigation, MIR. Nc
Burney represented the firm, and we perceive
No good reason why he may not be held to
represent them in this suit. Most OF these
n,rtners can come in and become parties to
the bill, if they desire to do 80. If they do
not. il will be because they think their inter-
ests already adequately represented. y
The court will not regard the absence Of
parties where interests are competently Iepre-
sented as an obstacle to doing justice by de-.
zee between the parties actually before it.
The other objection is, that elias N. Ball,
though named as party in the bill, has not
been served with process. It is the same
objection as the othef-namely, want of an
indispensable party. This gentleman. it seems,
bought the property in litigation OF the ex-
secured by mortgage upon the property, for
the purchase money. Subsequently, during the
wal. he sold to McBurney, and by a. irangemeDt
between himself. McBurney and the executors,
McBurney paid the amount due the e1ecu-
tors upon the bond in Confederate notes, and
they thereupon surrendered the bond and dis.
charged the mortgage. Subsequently and since
the war, Ball, 1t seems, has gone into bank
Iuptcy. Under these circumstances we do not
perceive that Ball is necessary party. 1t does
not appear that either he or his assignee in
bankruptcy have any interests which will be
prejudlced by a decree. At all events, as it
seems to US. decree may be mad 80 as to do
complete Justice between the parties before the
court. and at the same time protect any rights
which he or his assignee may appear to have.
We cannot regard him, therefore, as neces-
sarv party.
We do not express this opinion without
some hesitation, but our best judgment
is that 1t will receive the highest sane.
ton should the case 60 to the Supreme Court.
Whether this be so or not, it would be
positive wrong in this. court to turn
from its doors q euitor in another State
seeking q remedy against citizens in this
State, and thus deny to her right secured
BY the constitution, upon doubtful qTestion
in reference to parties. We would follow rath-
er the example of Judge story, that great light
Of equity Jurisprudence, and strain point in
favor of the constitutional right OF citizens oil
the several States, to sue the citizens Of other
States in the courts OF the United States. 1t
is a right too clear and too important to be
lightly disregarded.
We shall, therefore, overrule the objection
on account of want OF parties and continue the
case for answer. 1t is no small satisfaction to
know that any error we may now fall into will
be corrected by higher court.
The court then adjourned until II o'clock
this morning.