The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-08-29

opinion as 20 the oxpedieRcy Of the pur
pose OF che petitioners However desir-
able may bee the end they have I'm view,
we can only inquire as 90 the errors COM
mitted by The court below.
The prayer OF the petition was aa-
dressed largely TO tho discretion OF the
court 10 was i1 tho position 10 know
how the litigation was affecting The rights
of al parties interested I'm &c, and TO de-
eide how the grant of the prayer OF mo
petition would affect these rights.
Linda II. Johnson had fled "a creditors
bill. She was acting not only I'm her own
behalf but She was asking that others
should come in. Every one Of the orders
and DEGREES were passed either on her
motion or with her acqulescence. She
peresevored ion her applications 10 the CIR
cult Court of the Western District of Viz
g.nil. the Chancery Court I'm the same
State and n the two State courts In the
State of Virginia. And in an this the
Southern Building and Loan Association
was % party. fully concurrlng.
eat their instance the court below as
sumel the administration of the affairs of
this nsoiNent corporation within is Ju-
rlsllcu0n Tho receiver was appointed
and gave his bond assuming all bis duties.
The commissioner was named who called
On the creditors. naming limo and place.
Creditors came in. their claims were pre-
scented and are under adjudication.
"The parties originally ON the record
have lost thcir control of the case.
Others. at their instance. have been in-
yited or forced % come in. and these arc
vitality Interested boo the COMMUNICATION
which the court i5 cycrcising. Whom.
Therefore these original parties to mo
record now come in and ask thc court
@. To-. o.. d
its injunction. to stay IT'S hand. stop here
and surrender ITS administration of the
rights involved ln thc cause they are not
the only parties whose wishes must ue
consulted The stockholders and crcdi-
tors who have been called int0 tFat eco irf,
ana who have been forbidden COB I'D else.
where must Dee consulted AS they ara ih
no way represented ln This petition. ths
court. at the least must bt convinced init
D. is for their interest. as well as lht Ut
the petitioners that the prayer Of he
petition he granted. The record does rot
inform us 0n that point The court be-
low however. was in possession OF the
whole case It had knowledge OF the
number and character OF the claims pre-
scented under its order and OF the condi-
ton of the litigation therein. 10 was th9
duty of the court to exercise its discrc-
ton boz this matter and DR. Dr. Wero OF the
opinion that the rights OF amy oher party
would Dee preiudiced by granting tho prayer
of che petition DO could properly reject %.
Especially s0 as these parties are NOT bee
fore the court on thoir own motion. but
in Obedience tO its process. as they have
bceu prevented hy it- order from seeking
relief elsewhere and have been compelled
TO be where thy ~. 1n court below dh
exercise IT'S discretion. and dismissed The
petition Notwithstanding the wish OF tlo
parties to- tho record and their attorneys.
"Nye are of the opinion thar in This.
clee the court below lss committed no
error.
"The principle upon which the court
acted s stated in Daniels tha1'cry
Practice. page 79i % Am I'D: after a
decree has been made of such "a Kind ,.at
other persons besides the parties IN
record are Interested in the prosecution of
30. neither the plaintiff nor defendant on
the consent OF the other. can obtain an
order for the dismissal OF the BILL This
g. cited and approved by the supreme
Court OF the United states. Dob O. & A.
r. r.. Co. vs. Union Rolling Miil Co., 10
L.. S.. at page 49,
"The decree appealed from IS affirmed.