Case Name: Coster v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. and D. Drew
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1856-06-04
Citations: 5 Duer 677
Docket Number: 
Parties: Coster v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. and D. Drew.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 12
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
Coster v. N. Y. & Erie R. R. Co. and D. Drew.
Four persons, joint owners of a vessel, leased her, and two of them afterwards brought suit for the hire.
Held, 1st. That a legal action could only he sustained by all four suing together. 2d. That fewer than all might proceed upon equitable rights, and enforce them in equity.
8d. That to entitle themselves to do so, they must show in their complaint facts which excused them from joining the other co-owners as plaintiffs, and in such case must join them as defendants, unless it be shown that they had ceased to have any interest in the matters in controversy.
The complaint averred that the defendants had, some months after the lease was given, with intent to defraud the plaintiffs, purchased from the other parties interested, their shares in the vessel
Held, 1st. That the suggestion of fraud was immaterial, since, as respected the plaintiffs, the defendants had a right to purchase those shares.
2d. That the averment, of the sale of those shares, did not present any reason or excuse for not making the former owners of them parties, although it was a reason for proceeding in equity; it not appearing that they had transferred their interest in the hire which accrued prior to the sale of their shares in the vessel itself.
A cause of action, to restrain some of the part owners of a vessel from disposing of her, in derogation of the rights of other part owners, being the plaintiffs, cannotbe joined with a cause of action for the hire of the vessel.
This court, at General Term, in July, 1856, held, as above stated, on appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, upon demurrers interposed by them to the complaint.

Opinion:
Woodruff, J.,
announced the judgment, and his opinion, in which all the Justices concurred, is reported, with the pleadings and proceedings, in 3 Abb. 322.