The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-04-30
wing is the decree:
Decree Is Issued.

Decree Is Issued.
 Southern Steel company vs. Wiley Hop kins, as administrator, ct all, in chancery. Fifth district for northern chancery di- vision of Alabama:
 This cause coming on to be heard, was submitted for decree upon the several demurrers to the bill of complaint, mo- tions to dissolve the injunction for want of equity, motions to dismiss the bill for want of equity, and motions to dissolve the injunction upon the denials of the answer by the respondents respectively represented by Caldwell & Carmichael, Stallings & Drennen, F. s. White & Sons, George P. Bondurant and others, and by complainant upon the original bill and upon consideration it is held that the demurrers are not well taken, that there Is no equity in the bill of complaint, and that said injunction should be dissolved.
 It is hereby ordered, adjudged and de- creed that the demurrers be, and they are hereby, separately and severally over ruled, that the bill of complaint be, and is, dismissed, and that the writ of in- junction be, and 1t Is, dissolved, and that complainants pay the costs of the cause, for which execution may issue.
 The chancellor, upon making this final decree, being of the opinion that the in- Junction by 1t dissolved should be rein stated pending an appeal from this de- cree, If such appeal be taken. prescribes the penalty of the bond to be given by the party aggrieved to be s15,OOO and the conditions thereof that such party pay all damages and costs which any person may sustain by the reinstatement of such injunction, if it's dissolution be affirmed upon such appeal. A. H. BENNERS.
 April 20, 1907.
 ChanceIor's Opinion.
 
 company ao corporation, ayers in it's bill to avoid a multiplicity of suits, that 100 suits at law are pending In various courts against the Alabama Steel and Wire company. a corporation, enecuvely December 4, 1905, by virtue whereof the complainant, the Southern Steel company, came into existence as an incorporated corporation and It is further averred that these suits are all for damages by the killing in a mine explosion or over 100 men on February 20 1905.
 The bill seeks to enjoin all actions at law and have the question of the hapil- ity of the Alabama Eteel and Wire com pany for the damages claimed in all or them determined In this cause and court. It Is averred that there is a question or law and fact common to all the plain tiffs, to-wit, the explosion, and whether the Alabama Steel and Wire company Is liable in damages by reason of 1t, and It is averred that it has complete defense to all these suits and that 1t will be pre- vented from getting the benefit of 1t by being compelled by the law courts to try two or more of these cults at the same time having available only single wit nesses and counsel, and that the multi plex judgments resulting will be followed by corresponding suits against complain ant to reach assets liable in It's hands.
 This court holds that vexation by multi plex suits against the Alabama Steel and Wire company is not vexation of the Southern Steel company, an Independent corporation that canfe into existence De- cember f. 1905, and that the vexation of the latter, under the facts averred, can only follow a defeat and denial or Justice in failure to give to the Alabama Steel and Wire company hearing of-its defense in the law courts. The prevenA ton of such deplorable results should be sought in higher court and not by in- junction in chancery. Under another ground the bill must be held wanting in equity.
 In Turner vs. city of Mobile, 1855 Ala. D. 73, which was bill to avoid null tiplicity of suits, the supreme court or Alabama adopted the rule of law laid down in the case of Tribette vs l. C. R. R. Go. 70 Miss. p. S32, and denies the rule laid down in Pomeroy, that interest In question of law and fact common to all defendants is sufficient privity to sup port their joinder in bills like this one.
 Many authorities are cited in support Of Pomeroys view, and the Tribette case is shown to be discredted in Mississippi, but nevertheless it Is held by this court that the law is declared in the Tribette case being adopted in the Turner case, is decisive here against bills like this un- til 1t has been overruled by the supreme court of Alabama. This court cannot declare this holding of Chief Justice Me Clellan in the Turner case mere dic- tum While it is fact that the Tribette case, like the present case, is in Pom eroy's fourth class, 1. e., having number of defendants. and the Turner case is in his third class. 1. e., having number of plaintiffs, the principles are the same as privity and joinder in both.
 Wherefore the injunction is dissolved and the bill dismissed for want of equity.
 The injunction is important to com plainant in the event of this decree being an, wherefore bond is