The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-03-02


adjudication of such suit between the
parties who may be properly before it;
but the Judgment or decree rendered
therein Shall not conclude or pre1ud1ce
other parties not regularly served with
process, or not voluntarily appearing to
answer; and the non-ioinder of parties.
who are not SO inhabitants, or found
within the district, shall constitute no
matter of abatement or other Objection
to said suit.
This act relates solely to the non
joinder of persons who are not within
the reach of the process of the court. It
having an interest, are not Joined be-
cause their citizenship is such that their
joinder would defeat the jurisdiction;
and, SO far as it reaches suits in equity,
we understand it to be no more than a
legislative affirmance of the rule prev1-
ously established by the cases of Cam
eron VS. McRoberts g Wheat $50: Os-
borne VS.. TIE Bank of the United
States Qb. 1881, and Harding vs. Hardy
al H. 1922 For this court had already
there decided that the non-joinder OF
party who could not be served with
process would not defeat the jurisdiction.
The act says it shall be lawful for the
court to entertain jurisdiction; but as is
observed by this court in MalloWe VS..
Hinde az Wheat, 1881, When speaking or
a case where an indispensable party was
not before the court, we do not put TINS
case upon the ground OF jurisdiction, but
upon a much broader ground when
must equally Apply " otlI SOdl - ~
equity, whatever may be the structure
as to Jurisdiction; we put 1t on the
ground that no court can adludlcate dl-
rectly upon persons right, without the
party being either actually or construc-
lively, before the court So that, While
this act removed any difficulty as to 1u-
risdicton, between competent parties,
served regularly with process, 1t does
not attempt to displace that principle
of Jurisprudence on which the court
rested the case last mentioned, And the
forty seventh rule is only declaration
for the government of practltlones ana
courts of the effect of this act OF con.
gress and of the previous decisions OF
this court on the subject OF mat rule.
Hogan VS.. Walker "a How. $50
Limitations of Circuit Court.
at remains true, Notwithstanding the
act Of congress and the forty-seventh
decree affecting the right Of an absent
person, and can make no decree Pc
tween the parties before it, winch SO tac
in. Olives or depends upon the rights OF
an absent person, that complete and final
Justice cannot be done between the par
ties to the suit without affecting those
rights"
California VS.. Southern Pacific Co d57
II. S. 229). was a case in several par
ticUars like the present one. There
bill was filed in this court by the state
of California against the Southern Pa
cific company, a corporation of the state
of Kentucky, claiming title and jurisdlc-
ton by the state over certain large
tracts of land lying upon the shores OF
the bay of San Francisco, and over the
waters of said bay. including San An
tonic creek, and aVerring that the South
ern Pacific company claimed adversely
to the state. and was engaged in placing
structures in and upon said tracts of
land, thereby obstructing navigation in
the bay and adjoining waters. The bill
of the state and enjOining the defend
ant company from maintaining the
structures that it had placed upon said
tracts and the adjacent waters. The de-
PENDANT company answered the bill de-
nyln8 the ownership of the complainant in
the premises in dispute, and setting
forth it's own title derived from the
town of Oakland, as to the whole of the
water front of that town, through one
Carpenter, as grantee of said town by
ordnance and deed of conveyance, and
veyances the said title and property had
become vested, as to a part thereof in
the Central Pacific Railroad company,
and: as to another part, in the South
Paclhc Coast Railway company, and in
the defendant company as lessee. 1t
further was claimed that certain ordi-
nances and deeds of the town of Oak
land operated as a grant by the city Of
Oakland and the state of California OF
the land to the Oakland Water Front
company as grantee or alienee of Car
penter. The case was duly put at issue,
and commissioner was appointed to
take testimony therein and to return the
same to the court
When the case came on for hearing
it Was held by this court that the cit9
OF Oakland and the Oakland Water
Front company were so situated in re-
srect to the litigation that the court
ought not to proceed in their absence
In reaching this conclusion the court
reviewed the cases including the cases
above cited and others.
Upon the contention that the CITY of
Oakland and the Oakland Water Front
company might be made parties defend
ant, and the court thus enabled to pro-
ceed with the case, the court held that
court could not exercise original jurisdic-
ton In suit between a state on tho