The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1875-11-04
Douglas County Bonds.
Decision Of the Supreme Court
IN the County Railroad Bond
.Suit.
OPINION OF COLE j.

toNpfetSoFS u DoH3t@S C0nIe1Y, h6Sp0it-
dent q. Horace S. lVabridge ct al, APPELLANTS
There are really but two objections taken to
the complaint in the demurrer: First, multi
fariousness: or the improperjoinder of several
causes of action which are distinct in their
nature and DO not affect all the defendants.
Secondly, the complaint fails to state a cause
Of action against the defendants or either
of them. These points will be considered in
the order in which they are raised by the
demurrer.
The counsel for the defendants insist that
so far as the recovery Of the $275,O 900 bonds
in the custody of the First National Bank Of
Madison as trustee, is concerned that the de-
PENDANTS Walbridge Bros. and Sargent have
no interest whatever, and that so far as a re-
covery is sought against Walbridge Bros and
Sargent of the S75, zoe bonds, or the proceeds
thereof, none of the other defendants have
airy interest, and the counsel insist that the
plaintiff cannot and should not be allowed to
thus unite in one suit these distinct matters
against parties having no joint interest and
who have no connection with the different
transactions stated in the complaint.
An examination ofthe complaint will show
that these objections are not well founded.
One object of the action and part of the re-
lief sought is to have adudged void the tri-
partite agreement made and entered into on
the Goth day of June, 1878, between the
Superior and st. Croix Railway, the Northern
Pacific Railway and Walbridge Bros and
Sargent These defendants all acquired
rights under that agreement and are indis-
pensable parties to an action to cancel
and set it aside. Wabrdge, Bro
and Sargent turned over to the
Northern Pacific Railway all the interest in
the contract made by them with the Superior
and st. Croix Railway for the construction
Of the road, and received the SIS, 600 bonds
Of the county as payment for the work they
had performed, the materials furnished and
tools and implements used by them in the
construction Of the road under their con-
tract. They were also released from all liza
bility upon the bond which they had execu-
ted to the county as sureties for the Superior
and ST. Croix Railway conditioned for the per
Torrance Of certain stpulations on the part
Of that company. They likewise surren-
dered their certificates of stock in the latter
company and in pursuance of the arrange
ment agreed upon deposited with the trustee
the S275, 900 bonds which were to be held
BY such trustee and to be disposed Of in the
manner provided, for the benefit of both the
Northern Pacific Railway and the Superior
and St. Croix Railway, as the proposed road
was completed and equipped
Now, it seems to US plain this agreement
cannot be adjudged void without having all
the parties interested in it before the court.
1t is general rule that when a party is
directly affected by the decree, he is an in
dspensbIe party, and the courts only
depart from the rule :yhen the parties are
SO numerous that it would be incor venient
or impossible to comply with it. Williams
V, Bankhead, 10 Wallace SOB Story Eq. Plea,
S 81. The cancellation Of this agreement
affects directly and essentially all the artiee
to it aud certainly entire Justice cannot be
done without they are before the court. IF
the only relief sought were the rescission Of
the contract made in the first instance
between the plaintiff and the Superior and
St CroiX Railway, under VIII ch the bonds
were delivered and aid granted, some Of the
defendants would not possibly have 50 direct
an interest in the subject matter of the
litigation, though even then, upon the state
ments in the complaint, all the defendants
would seem to be proper, if not necessary
parties to granting such relief
But the objection Of multifariousness is
confined to cases where the cause of action
against each particular defendant is distinct
and separate in its subject matter from the
other defendants, If the grounds Of action
be not entirely distinct and unconneeted: if,
they arise out Of, and are the same tran
sacton or a series Of transactions forming
one course Of dealing and all tending to one