Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1922-02-23
AMENDED BILL IN
RAILROAD FUND SUIT
Allowed by Chancellor Wolcott
in Maintenance of Way
Litigation.

Chancellor Josiah o. wolcott has
amendment OF the amended bill of
complaint In the case OF William ID.
Roberts. David NJ. Armour. members
OF the United Brotherhood OF Mainten-
ance of Way Employees and Railway
Shop Laborers, in behalf OF themselves,
and also In behalf of such other MEM
bers OF said brotherhood as may de-
sire to Join rs complainants herein,
We. Leo l. Kennedy William T.. Haines.
Clyde A. Riegal. John T. Redmond.
Clyde l.. Hawkins, James +. Owne.
Frank r. Collier. Pearl u. Ballinger.
A. w. Whitkop, Charles n. O'Flanagan.
William II. Kane. William g. Weaver,
Sr., Daniel Redmond and Charles II.
Mills.
The amendment to the amended bill
charges that the defendents, in vio-
lation OF their duties and obligations.
have and are endeavoring by various
means TO break up the brotherhood, to
wronsfully apply its funds. and misuse
tits property, and prays for an nc
counting and Injunction.
The case came before the chancellor
on an objection TO allowing tho fling
of an amended bill and again on a
demurrer to the amended bill, which
demurrer was sustained. A further
amended bill was fled and the cause
then came on TO be heard on a demur-
rer TO the further amended bill. The
chancellor overruled three grounds Of
the demurrer and sustained one. David
J. Reinhardt and Alexander Jamison
represent the complaintants and j.
Frank Ball and Robert C. Harman, the
defendants.
i On the first ground Of the demurrer.
that the said bill of complaint has
introduced an entirely new cause OF
action from that alleged in said prior
amended bill of complaint. in that
Roberts and Armour have instituted
g class suit IN lieu OF the suit on be-
half Of themselves as individuals, as
in the prior amended BILL" the chan
cellor ruled that the fact that the COM
plainants seek relief as representa-
tives Of a class, whereas by their prior
: bill they sought relief In their indi-
, vidual capacities, the substance of
Ithe complaint remaining the same, does
: not constitute the introduction OF q
new cause of action.
: The chancellor held that the second
/ ground OF demurrer il not tenable.
J, This ground was as follows: That
the said bill OF complaint is filed to
mako the United Brotherhood OF
Maintenance Of Way Employees and
Railway Shop I.abnrers g party re-
spondent IN said amended bill OF COM
r plant, the said United Brotherhood OF
, Maintenance Of Way Employees and
3 Railway Shop Laborers being an IN
5 dispensable party Of said bill of COM
= plant"
The third ground OF demurrer was:
? THAT said bill of complaint Is filed
to set out therein said alleged wrong
,, doing on the part OF the said re.
, spondents to the suit, United Brother
Z hood of Maintenance Of Way Fan.
ployes and Railway Shop Iaborers, OF
/, the officers thereof. and 10 request the
1 same to bring suit in its name or theil
names on the refusal so TO do, or
behalf OF said United Brotherhood
of Maintenance Of Way Employees ant
: Railway Shop Laborers or the proper
officers thereof The chancellor he'll,
that this ground was not well taken
!, The fourth ground was: THAT tn,
: said bill of complaint has been brough
!. in behalf of your orators and also il
= behalf of only portion of a clas
= having a common and general inter
est. in place of the whole class
ss provided in rule 113, Court o
Chancery." This rule is as follows
When the question raised in su!
ie Is one Of common or general interes
q to many persons constituting a clas
, so numerous as 10 make II impractic
~ ablyto bring them all before the court
i one or more of the class may sue o
a. defend for the whole class"
Ell After considering the contention a
n length. the chancellor held that thi
s.. ground of demurrer was well taker
n. The chancellor directed thst order b
It entered in accordance with the opin
er ion