The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-15

rule is, that in cases where two courts have concurrent Jurisdiction. the court which first takes cognizance of the cause, retains 1t to the exclusion of the other Kim Y. Smith 15 Ala, 269. It that where two courts nave concur rent Jurisdiction over the same thing, the one which first possesses the cause, has right gptG fo proesed r wth 1t and can other Nelson v. Hatch. Is Ala, 514 The law IS too well settled to be ques- toned, that where two courts have con l takes cognizance of the cause has the right to retain it to the exclusion of the other' pssule,o,S Gouid Y Hayes Jss ls Ala, fss. "When different courts have concur rent Jurisdiction, the enc before whom proceeding may be first had, and whoso Jurisdiction first attaches. must neces- sarlly have authority naramount to the other courts. or, rather. the action first commenced shall not be abated by an action commenced between same parties in relation to the same subject. in the | same. or any other court. 'Stearns V. Stearns, 1s Mass, 171.' It. is. the adop- 9n aare 0f aT citation o o tq ths
 where a court has Jurisdiction. 1t has right to decide every question which occurs in the cause. and, that. wherr the. jurisdiction of the court, and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit I in it. have once attached. that right cannot be arrested or taken away by
 
 rules have their foundation, not merely | in comity. but on necessity. For if one may enjoin. the other may retort by in- junction and thus the parties be with out remedy: being liab)c for a process for contempt in. one. If they dare to proceed in the other. The sues only, to the parties before the court, and not to the court Is no | evasion of the dificulties that are the necessary result of an attempt to ex- | n forss 5san' Peck % Jenness. nes ERo%srd s24; Law Ed. F S4s; , ., .oor l dinate Jurisdiction and powers has ob- tained Jurisdiction of cause, 1t should retain 1t until finally disposed of. and | ity to grant injunctions. yet if one | tribunal properly having cognizance l of the case has exercised its jurisdic- ton, the other having sogni;zadnce, or ! the other could refuse to interfere | Nor will the prosecution of suit in one court be enJoned by court. of co-ordinate turisdicticn when the for mer tribunal may afford adequate re- lief High on Injun A.ions. t3rd edo Sec. Is: While courts of equity. as Is their Jurisdiction. when 1t has once attached, to be usurped by other tri- bunals, they. will not. upon the other hand, interfere with proceedings. in which have first acquired control over the subject matter of the controversy,
 High on injunctiio9ns, 6srd sd,2 Sec So | that the prosecution of a suit in one court cannot be enjoined by another court of co-ordinate Jurisdiction. Ex- gested, in case the court in which the | proceedings sought to he obtained ara
 pending can not afford adequate relief.
 Wilson V. Baker. s4 Cal: 47s: The prin-- | ciple ssA Is properly stated
 that the court which first takes cogni- zance of the controversy Is entitled to
 litigation. and incidentally to take the | possession or control of the res, the l subject matter of the controversy, to
 the exclusion of all interference ,.,s' from | ton, and that the proper application
 of this principle does not require that
 the court which first takes Jurisdiction
 the actual possession of the thing in
 that the only safe rule to follow - :" l is that the court which first takes control of the controversy teven though
 1t may be an imperfect bill. so 1t gives jurisdiction of the controversy and tain ieHs 1t to to the the end, Without being dis turbed by any other court of concur
 rent Jurisdiction. Gaylord vs. Railroad Company, 6 Bissell, 2S6.
 Nights of stockhoIders.
 'In discussing the rights of minor ity stockholders to sue to redress
 R vo of as Sec Ss5 o his se
 work on Equity Jurisprudence, says:
 Although the corporation holds all the
 title. legal or equitable. to the corpo-
 cestui que trust under the directors with respect to such property. and Is
 far Wyonu ns pny sanFs En pf'y the
 property. yet courts of equity rscog. g.
 are ultimately. the only benefactories; ! indirectly. protected by remedies given l to the corporation. and that the final
 object of suits by the corporation Is holders. While, in general. actions to | obtain relief against wrongful deal ings with the corporate property by al. rectors and officers must be brought | by and in the name of the corpora | tion, yet if in any such case the cor poration should refuse to bring suit, diate and certain remedy, unless a modification of the general rule tSa Tsre folloWins fo%seo modoation na' of he the general rule stated in the last preceding paragraph has been estab- lished as firmly and surely as the rule ists primarily in behalf of the corpo. ration against directors, officers. and others for wrongful dealing with cor Of of corporate franchises. So that the remedy should regularly be obtained through a suit by and In the name of the corporation, and the corporation either actually or virtually, refuses to institute or prosecute such suit. then, in order to prevent a failure of Jus- tice, an action may be brought and maintained by stockholder or stock holders. either individually. or suing qn behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against the wrong doing directors, officers and other per that the corporation Itself should be joined as q party-~usually as a CO., defendant The rationale of this rule should not be misapprehended. The stockho older does not bring such a suit because his rights have been directly violated or because the cause of ac- tion Is his, or because he Is entitled to the relief sought; he Is permitted to see in this manner simply in order 10 set in motion the judicial machinery individually or as the representative of the class, may commence the suit, and may prosecute 1t to judgment; but in every other respect the action is the ordinary one brought b. the cor poration, 1t Is maintained directly for final relief when obtained, belongs to the corpora tion, and not to the stock holder plaintiff. The corporation is, therefore. an ndispensablv necessary party not simply on the general prin- ciples of equity pleading in order that 1t may bo bound by the decree, but in order that the relief when granted. may be awarded to it, as Harty to the record, by the decree. This view completely answers the objections Of this class. that the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the