Phoenix weekly herald., 1897-07-15
THE WATER CASE.
Judge Baker DismisseS the Case
 Today.
A MultifareOus Complaint That Could Not Be Legally
 Adiudicsted.

|
 the following decision in the important
 water caee, which has been pending for | many months:
 Iu the District Court of the Third
 Judicial District of the Territory of
 Arizona, in and for the County of Mari
 cops.
 A l.. Henshaw ct al. plaintiffs, vs. The
 Salt River Valley Canal Company ct 1 al, defendants.
 l That bill in equity which is multi
 tarious may be dismissed is elementary
 law. Story Equity Pleading, 271. The
 usual aud better practice is to raise the question of multitariousnees by demur.
 reF. l Bssch Modern Equity Practice, l26. As rule, unless the objsction is so taken, ths dstecs in the bill Is con-
 sidered waived. Story Equity Plead
 ing, 2S4 Co. Nevertheless, the court may, of it's own accord, at the hearing, order she bill dismissed and will do so
 where it's form em bsrrassee the court in the administration of justice. Story
 Equity Practice 284 (e). 1 Beach
 Modern Eq uisy Practice 126. &weyze
 Sweyze NJ. E 273.
 In applying these principles the
 plesdings should be generously treated,
 with the aim to arrive at substsn tisI | justice.
 1 For justice Is the end of all litia stion, and mere seohuicslities ought not to be l suffered Do defeat that end. Under our | present. cods system, the peFplexing rules of the common law governing | pleadipgs are abolished, and in their
 place are substituted the few and sim pie rules of the code; yet, iooseness or 1 isxity in pleading which emberrssses 8 party in making his defense, or the court in framing just judgment, is ss obnoxious today ss it ever wss in she history of the law. The coda system WAS never intended to, and as 8 matter of fact does not, abolish the ancient principles of juris prudence; they re- main ursltsred and unchanged. and, hence, ID multifariouspees u in bill is a vice under the new, ss it was under the old procedure.
 Multifsriousnsss is joining together improperly in one bill of com plaint dis tino5 and independent matters, thereby oonfounding them. A bill must oon- tain more than one good, distinct and sevsrebie ground for the maintenance of suit in equity to violate the rule. Two distinct and severable obi jsoss can> not be litigaeed in ons suit; it's double character destroys i5. Lshigh Zinc Go. N. J. z DC Co. 43 Fed. 545. l Bssch Modern E1. Prec. 115 Il is impossible to lay down any abs3rac5 rule applics- ole in all oasss as to what will consti-- sute mulsitsriousness; each case must depend upon it's own circumstances and the sound discretion os the court. Story Eq Pleading 539.
 1 think this bill is multifarious, and so much so as to call for the interfeF- ence of the court upon the hearing, el- though no demaFrsr was in5erposed h that respect. The offanse is apparent, mainly in the folio wing instance: Sew eral distinct and severable causes of action different in character, ere united in the bill Taking the instrumeDs as a whole and dieyeg scdiog it's artificial division which plaintiffs contend should be done) these two ideas or grounds for complaint are prominent and controll- ing from the facts alleged: First Many of the grievances and supposed wrongs omplained of relate wholly to she management and disposition of the corporate property and affairs of the defendant, The Salt River Valley Canal Company, by the maj 3rity shareholders and by the directors thereof, ss against the plaintiff and theiF rights ss minoF- Isy shareholders in such corporation. As said, this ground is distinct and prominent and appears in so many phases and forms throughout the bill, l that it is imprscticable to reeite them | in this brief opinion. The plaintiffs iu- | tended to maintain the action in their capacities as minority shareholders ID | the corporation The Salt River Valley l Canal Company to redress these griev- ances is manifest from the statement l in the comnlaint to the effect that | they had presented a resolution 50 | he corporation, embodyiDg the grieV- snces in part, and requesting redress st she hands of the corporation by suit or other wise, and which was reroseo. II s quits proper that where the officers charge of corporate property are mis managing the same to the debriment of ha shareholders, OF where majority of ha shareholders wrongfully invade the ,roperty rights of the minority share ,oIdere in the corporate property, and be corporation through its officers will oh take legal steps to protect such iohts of the minority shareholders, or n proteos she corporate property itself, hs minority shareholders may institute . he necessary prooeedings to effect thet eeult. This Is common procedurs, but be suit, when so instituted, becomes nd remains She suit of the corporation self and must be so treated. Pome- s oy Equity Jurisprudeuce. 1091. It t inst bs furtbsr kept in view that such 1 suit can only determine corporate i ropersy rights. or the rights of share g oldsfs in relation thereto. Individual s Ss separate and distinct from the I ,Rorssion cannot be litigated in such r procsediog; and, if joined together in f ie same bill to maintain purely corpor- c je right, or rights as ehRreh elders in D ,rporste property, the suit will cer- d