St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-12-25
THE BIG PRENTICE SUITS
For the Heart Of Duluth, Will Stay
in the Federal Courts.

FOR the FcafC Oh bui utn, w III stay
in the Federal Courts.
The casrs involving the claim of
Frederick Prentice. of New York, to a
mile square i'll Duluth proper. are not
To be remanded 10 The district court of
st. Louis county for trial. Judge Mel
son, of tlie United States circuit court,
decided as much yesterday. The point
was raised in the Case of Charles E..
i.ovett, Frank K. Webbpr. Charles r.
Stewart and hay S. Lewis against
Prentice. The court reviews the facts
in HE case beginning with the ceSSion
To the liI'iiau chief Buffalo of the land
IN question and tracing the history
down. to the time of the commencement
of the suit, and then proceeds to coll
sirIle the law as applicable tn the
question of removal from the federal
court 10 the state court for hearing.
He said the application is in the
Rature OF plea i'll abatement which
goes to the right of this court to hear
the case. This plea in abatement is
based upon a stipulation as TO the
ainuunt in controversy. 1t is urged
that the criterion of jurisdiction of The
federal court is to be determined by tie
value or the particular lot OF portion of
land owned by Lewis att! by Webbrr
JitIge Nelson continues as follows:
The suit is instituted to determine the
title to the entire tract of land and set
tie the disputed claims of the defend
ant. He Is a c,'inniuii adversary AMI
plaintiffs have aeaamnn source of TITLE.
While the coinplainantS respectively
claim to own separate and Specific lots
divided out nf the large tracts, and so
far iheiI interests NAV be separate and
distinct, yet the con ruversy is in regard
to common title IN which the several
compiainaHts are collectively inter
esled. and in which they have com
munIty OF interest. The relief asked is
TO establish the Gilman title AMI also
the right of each Individual complain
ant To the Specific tract claimed.
The suit belongs to that class where
person claims a right against great
number of individuals claiming under
the Same general right. Equity then
interfrres Ivy otliging the party to abde
by the event of a single issue. or where
number of persons claiming distinct
rights III the saint subject, and there
must nece~ sarIly he a multiplicity of
suits. A biI Is filed to put an end to
the controversy by a single suit, or as
better expressed by Mr.. Pomerny:
where number of persons have
separate and Individual claims and
rights of action against the same party,
but all arise from soiae common cause,
are governed by the same legal rules
and involve similar facts, and the whole
imdtter might be settled in a single suit
brought 10y all these persons uniting as
cnpiaIntitfS, or one OF the persons suing
on hehalf OF the others. or even by one
person suing fer himself aIonp."
The eomDaiHantS here have an iden-
tity of interests. common tie, and the
value of the halter in dispute is meas
ured by the value of all the land repre-
sentrd and claimed by the plaintiff,
whose title is deme and not by the
value of the separate lots of each. The
amount of all the lots represented by
the ctHnplanantS issufflcient to give the
right of removal, and the motion to re
man Is denied.
The same order is made applicable to
number of other actions Instituted by
other parties who had brought similar
actions against Prentice to quiet title tn
their several tracts or lots of Iand. In
those cases like the one in which the
order is made an application was made
oil tie same grOun to remand to the
state court for hearing.