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

to try title against any one whom he finds in
possession OF the land or, If he find it unoccu-
pled, 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
EFT AL.
In this case the only question is as to par
ties and we are called upon to meet it at .he
threshold. The objection of the want OF par
Of Of cause, and even in the appellate court.
The objection will be disregarded whenever
taken, If it appears that the parties are not
necessary, or If. although convenient and un-
der some clPcu instances necessary, they cannot
be made. without deprivng the court of juris-
diction. On tho other hand, when it appears tha
no final decree can be made without material
P~re'udlce ~ TO lhe Interests OF parties not before
them. even though such parties are beyond
the reach Of it's process, or cannot be made
without ousting the jurisdiction.
courts Of the United States as fully as n to the m
courts of the States. In administering these
rules, however. the courts Of The United States
state. other than that,in whica the defendants
reside, shall invoke their j.. !. =. ION in vain,
unless it is obviously impose 60 prot..s M =.
IN, n 'es Only question here is Whether
there is any such obvious impossibilisy in this
case. It is objected, In the first place, that
thepartDers OF the defendant, McBurney, are
Indispensable parties. But it is plain upon
the bill and answer that in all the tranea factions
which form the subject Of litigation, Mr.. 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
prtners can come in and become parties to
the bill, if they desire to do 80. If they do
not, it will be because they think their inter
ests already adequately represented.
The court will not regard tho absence Of
parties where interests are competently repre-
sented as an obstacle to doing justice by de-
cree between the parties actually before it.
though named as q party in the bill, has not
been served with process. It is the same
objection as the other-namely, want of an
indispensable party. This gentleman. it seems,
ecutors Of VIM. A. Carson. He gave his bond,
secured by mortgage upon the property, for
the purchase money. subsequently, during the
between himself. McBurney aud the executors.
McBurney paid the amount due the execu-
tors upon the bond in Confederate notes, and
they thereupon surrendered the bond and dis
charged the mortgage. Subsequently aud since
the war, Ball, It seems, has gone into bank
Iuptcy. Under these circumstances we do not
perceive that Bail is necessary party. It does
not appear that either he or his assignee in
bankruptcy have any interests which will be
prejudlced by decree. At all events, as it
seems to us. decree may be made so as to do
complete Justice between the parties before the
cOuTC, ana az Inc same Clmo protect any rights
which he or his assignee may appear to have
We cannot regard him, therefore, as o neces-
sarv party.
We do not express this opinion without
is that it will receive the highest sane.
tion should the case go to the Supreme Court.
Whether this be so or not it would be
positive, wrong in this court to turn
from it's doors euitOr in another State
seeking remedy against citizens in this
State, and thus deny to her 9 right secured
by the constitution. upon doubtful question
er the example of Judge Story, that great light
Of equity jurisprudence, and strain q point in
favor Of the constitutional right OF citizens Of
the several States, to sue the citizens Of other
to.ha