The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-01-15


 down by the Supreme court:
 Turner ct al. vs. City of Mobile-Bill in
 Equity to Enjoin Action of Ejeetment
 and to Prevent Multiplicity of Suits Appeal from the Chancery Court of Mo- bile.
 1. Equity jurisdiction; what Is necessa- " to maintain bill to prevent multiplicity of suits.-The prevention of a multiplicity of suits Is not, considered by itself alone, an Independent source or occasion of equity jurisdiction, in such sense that 1t can create a cause of action, when one did not otherwise exist; and before par ty or parties can invoke the Jurisdiction of chancery to prevent a multiplicity of suits, such party or parties must have some prior legal or equitable rights in the premises. It can not be invoked at all for the mere prevention of a multi plicity of suits, by bringing Into one liti- gation numerous pending or imminent &C., tions by 8 party who Is without cause of action or ground of defense.
 2. Same; same-To authorize numerous persons, or one person for himself, or for himself and others, to maintain a bill for the prevention of a multiplicity of suits, there must be a common title to, or a common interest in, the subject mat ter involved; and a mere common interest in the question of law in the pending or threatened suits. is not sufficient to au- thoriZe the exercise of equity Jurisdiction for such purpose
 8. Same; same.-Where numerous &C., tions at law are brought by the same party plaintiff against separate and dis tinct parties defendant, a court of chan cery will not exercise it's Jurisdiction for the purpose of consolidating such action. and thereby preventing a multiplicity of suits, when no common property right or franchise Is held by such numerous parties defendant, and when only one suit is pending, or threatened against each, and no one of them could be in- jured by the multiplicity Of actions in which other persons would be parties, though the right of defense of such per- sons relied upon by each of such parties defendant is the same or is dependent upon the same state Of facts.
 4. Same; same.-Where a single party has instituted several actions of eject ment against separate and different par ties defendant for the recovery from each separately of distinct lots or parcels of land the facts that the claims of title on the part of the party plaintiff is the same in each of said several suits, and that the attitudes and rights of the de- fendant in each of said actions are the same or similar, and, therefore. each of the defendants in said suits has an in- terest in common with all the others In
 
 said actions, are not sufficient to au- thorize the maintenance of a bill by the defendant In one of the actions of eject ment, either in his own behalf alone, or in behalf of himself and the defendants in the other ejectment suits, to enJon all the actions of ejectment and thereby pre- vent multiplicity of suits.
 5. Same; what necessary to authorize maintenance of bill in equity.--A party uyhO Ira fO int itty fo oh In lief must himself have equity; and, there fore, where the title relied on by the party defendant in an action of ejectment Is legal, where his defense is at law, and all his rights remedies and defenses arc cognizable in a legal form, he can not maintain a bill to enjoin other actions of ejectment, brought by the same plain tiff against different parties, and thereby prevent a multiplicity of suits, upon the theory that the court has an equity, or upon the ground that the several defend ants in the other suits have like but tirely independent and disconnected legal rights. estates or defenses. is
 6. Rights of riparian or lIttoral owners; where parol license to erect wharves re- vocable; estoppel.-A parol license grant ed by shore owner to the owner of the upland abutting on the shore, to erect wharves on and across the shore, Is re- vocable at the option of the shore owner, although the owner of the upland abutt- ing on the shore has performed acts hereunder or has expended money In re- liance thereon; and the fact that the H. cense is executed or that money has been expended by the licensee under 1t, does not equitahly estop the shore owner CT licepsCr from revoking the license.
 T. Taxation; estoppel as to State or city.-The fact that statutes of this State, and ordinances of one of the cities of the State levy taxes on wharves owned and maintained by citizen, involves no mat ter of equitable estoppel upon the State or said city to assert whatever legal title either may have to the shore lot on which such wharves are located.
 8. Equity Jurisdictions; fact that title Is held by trustee confers no equity jurlsdic- tion.-The mere fact that the legal title to land Is In a trustee, gives no right to the dsseizor to come into court of equity to enjoin an action at law by the trustee for the recovery of possession of said lands.
 Modified and affirmed. Opinion by Me- Clellan c. J.
 Deposit Bank of Frankfort. Kentucky vs.
 Caffee ct al.-Bill in Equity by Judg
 ment Creditor to Set Aside Alleged
 Fraudulent ConYeyances,-Appea from
 the Chancery Court of Lowndes.
 1. Fraudulent conveyances; to main- tain bill attaching a conveyance the ex- istence of debt must be shown.-In order for a creditor to maintain suit in equity to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent whether 1t be constructively or actually fraudulent, there must be shown the ex- istence of a debt due the complainans, for the payment of which, except for the conveyance, the property transferred could be made liable to creditors: and In such suit the grantee in the conveyance must have an opportunity to dispute the debt, and may plead any defense not merely personal. which the grantor or debtor could have made against him.
 g. Competency of witness; transactions with and declarations by a deceased per son.-Under the provisions of the statute, which prohibits a party from testifying to "any transactions with or statements by a deceased person whose estate Is in- terested In the results of the suit" Code. Section 1795) a party to a suit Is not a competent witness to prove admission or declarations made by the decedent or transactions made with him in life time, when tho purpose of the evidence Is to diminish the rights of said decedent, or those claiming under or in succession to him.
 3. Fraudulent conveyance: what con- stitutes the reservation of q benefit to the grantor,-Where in a conveyance by debtor to creditor. in payment of an al- legged debt, there Is conferred some right which is inconsistent with the absolute unconditional sale or there Is secured to or reserved for the grantor, either ex- pressly or secretly use or benefit which does not result from the nature and char acter of the sale, and which the law oper- fI,ay npf en,fa