The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1875-11-04

Eq Plea 3. 27l b. Blake V. Van Til!org 81
Wis 672. In the case cited Mr.. Justice
Downer states the rule as follows: "a COM
plant does not improperly unite several
causes of action which relates to matters of
the same nature all connected with each
other, and in which all the defendants are
more or less interested or concerned, though
their rights, in respects to the general sub
ject of action, may be different, and some
may be directly interested only in part of
the general claim" In Brinkerhoff V. Brown
his usunl research and learning the question
of multifariousness ard after an examination
of the English cases upon the subject de-
duces this rule from them: "a bill against
several persons must relate to matters of the
same nature, and having a connection with
each other, and in which all the defendants
are more or less concerned, though their
rights in respect to the general subject of
the case may be distinct" p. 1876. This
rule is cited with appreciation FeIlons v
Fellons, 4 Cowen 6S2 aud is in effect recog-
nized and followed in Winslow V. Donsman,
% Wis. 457: and Bassett V. Warner % do
SIS. This complaint is not multifarious
within these rules; all the matters stated in it
are more or less connected and all the de-
PENDANTS are more or less concerned or in
terested in them. The defendants are not only
interested in the question as to the validity
and binding obligation of the arrangement
made on the Goth day Of June, 1878, but they
would also seem to be interested in the de-
cision which shall be made as to the right of
the county TO rescisson of its original con
tract with the Superior and ST. Croix Rail
way and the recovery of its bonds. "They
therefore have" in the language Of the Judges
in Fellons V. Fellons, zone common interest
centering in the point in issue in the cause,
namely. whether the county upon the case
presented is entitled to annul its subscription
and have the relief demanded. It's right to
recover the 900 bonds of Walbridge
Bros and Sargent and the S27j, 600 IN the
possession of the trustee turns upon its right
to have the contacts mentioned in the com
plant adjudged void. Does, them the com
plant state a cause of action against the de
PENDANTS, more especially against Walbridge
Bros and Sargent, who alone have dcmurred?
Upon this point the able and lucid argument
of plaintiffs counsel left no room for
doubt.
1t appears that in October, 1871, the Board
Of Supervisors of Douglas County entered
into an arrangement with the Superior and
St. Croix Railway to subscribe $3.50, 900 to
the capital stock of the company and to pay
for the same in the bonds of the county; the
terms and conditions of the arrangement
were submitted to the electors of the county,
who voted to grant the aid proposed, under
the authority conferred by Oh. 326 ?. L. 1870
The complaint states that the chief object
which the electors of the county had in view
in voting aid was to secure the speedy com
pletion Of arailaoad from the Bay of Superior
to a connection with the Northern Pacific
Railway in Carlton County Minnesota. Accor
ding to one of the stipulations in the arrange
menJ upon which aid was voted the Superior
and st. Croix company agreed by the 1st of
July, 1878, to complete and operate good
and substantial railroad from the Bay of
Superior westerly to the Minnesota State
line. and from thence so as to connect with
the Northern Pacific at some practicable and
convenient point in the county of Carlton,
50 as to make continuous railway from the
Bay Of Superior to the Northern Pacific
and by another stipulation the said company
agreed to place upon the railway thus con
structed two first class locomotives and forty
platform cars on or before the first day of
January 1873. A further stipulation was that
before the bonds of the county should be de
Iivered not less than S350,0O0 in addition to
the subscription then existing to the stock Of
said company and to the amount to be sub
scribed by the county, should be subscribed
by good and responsible parties and that the
company as principal and the defendants
Walbrldge Bros and Sargent as sureties should