Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-02-15

Wuetuet III u given cHSe-lI SHolIII as
sumo jurisdiction OF q cal,sa or leave
the controversy til bc determined by
the law courts, being distinct tribunals
composed of the law judges, and in
another way by court which is tho
only tribunal that can hear and deter
mine the controversy in any event, and
which is only called upon to decide
whether it should hear and determinc'
it as Il court of equity, employing the
procedure and remedies appropriate to
q court of equity, or as court of law
using the procedure and remedies APP
ptopriate to n law court.
Counsel fer complainant rely largely
upon the arguments and authorities
contained in the painstaking and elab-
crate work of Mr.. Pomeroy on Equit-
able Jurispi udence, fully 90 pages of |
that treatise being devoted to a discus
sion of tho equitable doctrine of |
multiplicity OF suits. " moro especially |
in relation to tax controversies In |
view of this, and of the wide reputation |
of Mr.. Pomeroy's work, | will use q
quotation from his discussion of this
subject as an illustration OF tho dis
tinction to which l have just referred,
and of the probable point of view which
has sometimes determined the decisions
of those blended tribunals Pomeroys
Equity Jurisprudence, Vol. /, section
270, note =. reads as follows: Can it
appear to the thoughtful observer other
| Wise than rs farce or travesty upon
the administration of justice, to see q
court deny all relief to body OF tax
payers suing in the form of an equit-
| able action to restrain an Illegal tax,
or to set aside an illegal official act,
such rs a town bonding, for the alleged
| reason that their interests were sep
arate, and could not be determined by
one decree, and then see the self same
| Judges, on behalf of the same taxpayers
il the same case, and upon exactly the
same facts, set forth in a petition,
| grant tho very identical relief, and set
aside the tax or official act, by their
adjudication made on writ of GER
tlorari. :"
The statute which gives to the Court
of Chancery in this State, essentially
the jurisdiction of the English Court of
Chancery, is the same statute which con-
ferred equitable jurisdiction upon the
Colonial Court OF Common Pleas in the
reign of George ], Gordon being lieu
tenant-governor OF the province. The
present Court of Chancery, created by
the Constitution Of 1882, being invested
by that Constitution with the equit-
able jurisdiction theretofore vested in
the judges of the Court of Common
Pleas. This statute, as did the colonial
statute of George contains the follow
! ing Eroviso Provided, that the Chan
cellor shall not have power to determine
any matter wherein sufficient remedy
may be had by common law, or statute,
Before any other court or jurisdiction of
this State; but that where matters,
: determinable at common law, shall be
brought before him in equity, he shall
| remit the parties to the common law. ="
Thus, while all the powers of the
| English Court of Chancery were vested
} in our Court of Chancery by the Con.
/ stitution and laws of this State, the
, most effective barrier against possible
/ encroachment, either upon other trihu-
+ nails OF the rights OF individuals, was
not left to be drawn from English pre-
. cedents or general principals, but was.
] explicitly expressed as words of limita.
y tion or prohibition in the very statute
Q which conferred the general powers.
t The jurisdiction that exists il
@ equity ito prevent multiplicity o.
IS SUITS" is based necessarily, in tht
9 last analysis, uron the inadeqnacy o
J, the legal remedies, evidenced by tn,
l. multiplicity of suits, the costly anc
: harassing litigation which can be pre-
y vented only by the Intervention of /
n court OF equity. AS expressed by gu
q own statute, 1.-THE Chancellor shall no
I. have power to determine any matte
70 wherein sufficient remedy may be- had b.
i common law or statute, before an
o other court or jurisdiction of thi
l. State, and therefore when this cour
is asked Ito determine any matter" i
re order "tc prevent multiplicity G
ia SUITS, " the real test of jurisdiction
,e found in the quesEion-to be answere
le in the light of authority as well as rea
Of son-is there imminent and threatene
8, a multiplicity of suits of such natur
In and between such parties as to satisf
1T the court that the legal remedies al
l. not sufficient.
ia The earliest instance in which tn
RS Court of Chancery exercised this iuri'
diction were called ''Bills of Peace,
ID and in the growth and expansion
~ this branch of it's jurisdiction, severe
III classes or subdivisions quite distinct
kind, have been defined. Tho mo!
g. familiar and well-defined are such {
RS the bill praying for an injunction
in prevent repeated trespasses, when I'll
i'd legal rights have been ascertained, {
or a continuing nuisance where the pure
n, legal rights are undisputed and Il
"a facts are clear, or to restrain furth
he actions of ejectment, after several su
of cessire actions have been prosecute
id without success.
n; The 6oldest and most ingenious adv
IT, cate would hardly attempt to inclut
m the present case within any of tho
lat subdivisions, but the analogy soug
i'd. in this case is with that class of Gas
set which trace their origin to suits broug
he to decide controversies between all d
by copyholders of q manor and their Tor
nd or such suits as those brought by Er
his prietor in possession claiming exclusi
Oh right of fishery In certain water
as against numerous other persons asset
,en ing rights to fish in the same waters
separate and independent claims. 10
snt Tenham vs.. Herbert, A Tx, 433; May
be- or YORK VS.. PilklnSton, l Atk., e
ell and the cases cited by Chancellor Ike
in Brinkerhof, ct al, VS.. Brown, ct q
ln- 6 johnson Cbancery, 139.
for To this class belongs a number
the tax suits which have been cited in Il
ore cause and in some of them, the reasc
ing, if it should BIO carried to its lo
in cal conclusion, would leave few of /
hat affairs of men out of reach of 81
to strong arm of equity" the iniuncti
late process.
and In r VS.. Williams, Is State Tria
lsly 143D, Sir X. Atks MS remarked, "It
ON. indeed commonly said, 'boni judicis
tho ampliare iurisdictiopem. But ] ts
ris- that To be bettar advice which '
It a given by Lord Chancellor Bacon
a Ll..tt 4 4.