Case Name: Coe and others against Turner and wife
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1823-07
Citations: 5 Conn. 86
Docket Number: 
Parties: Coe and others against Turner and wife :
Judges: The other Judges were of the same opinion.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 86–93

Head Matter:
Coe and others against Turner and wife :
IN ERROR.
A writ of error to reverse a judgment against two or more persons, must be brought in the names of those only who were prejudiced by such judgment.
Therefore, where a bill in chancery was brought against A., B., C. and D., and the relief sought was decreed against A. and B. only, C. being dismissed without costs, and D. recovering his costs; and a writ of error was brought in the names of A. and B. only; it was held, on a motion to quash such writ of error because C. and D. were not joined, that it was properly brought, and the motion was disallowed.
A. having executed a deed, conveying land to B., put it into the hands of C., to be kept by him until a certain bond should be given to A., and then to be delivered to B.—C. accepted the trust, and immediately delivered the deed to B., who was a bankrupt, without performance of the condition. On a bill in chancery, brought by A., against C., to recover the value of the land, it was held, that such bill could not be sustained, 1. because the plaintiff might have adequate remedy, if he was entitled to any, in an action at law for damages; and 2. because the deed in the bands of C. was an escrow, and the condition not being performed, the title never passed from A.
A. conveyed certain land to B. in trust for the wife of A.; and B. made out and delivered to her a deed of such land. The latter deed not being recorded, she, with the assent of B., and without the assent other husband, cancelled it, B., in violation of Ms trust, immediately conveyed away such land, and received the avails thereof, for which he never accounted. On a bill in chancery, brought by A. and his wife, against to recover the value of the land, it was held, that such bill could not be sustained, 1. because the plaintiff might have adequate remedy, if he was entitled to any, in an action at law for damages; and 2. because the cancellation of the deed had no effect upon the title previously vested.
Middlesex,
July, 1823.
Where a bill in chancery was brought against several defendants, seeking redress for injuries, arising out of transactions with them separately, at different times, and relating to different subjects; it was held, that such bill was bad for multifariousness.
This was a bill in chancery, brought by Joel Turner and Anna, his wife, against Joseph Coe, Joseph Hale, Hezekiah Hale and William Bevins, to obtain a reconveyance of certain lands, or the avails thereof.
On the 1st of March, 1817, Anna Turner had an estate in fee-simple, subject to the life estate of her husband, in two tracts of land in Middletown, one containing about four acres, the other about twenty acres. During the year 1817, Coe was the overseer of Joel Turner. On the 12th of June in that year, Turner and wife, with the approbation of his overseer, executed a warrantee deed of seven acres, comprising the whole of the first-mentioned piece and three acres of the other, to Hezekiah Hale as the grantee, and placed it in the hands of Coe, upon condition not to be delivered to Hale until Bevins should execute a good bond, with surety, in the sum of 2000 dollars, that he, Bevins, would convey to Mrs. Turner an equal quantity of land, of equal value, in the town of West-Springfield, in Massachusetts. Coe accepted the trust; but immediately afterwards, in violation of it, delivered such deed to H. Hale, taking only Bevin's bond, without surety, for 2000 dollars, conditioned, that he should, within two years from that time, give Mrs. Turner a warrantee deed of the like quantity of land. Before the expiration of the two years, Bevins failed, and became wholly unable to pay for the land, or to procure a deed, and give a good title; in consequence of which, the plaintiffs lost their land. The value of the land, at the date of the deed, with interest to the time of the decree, amounted to the sum of 997 dollars, 55 cents; which the court ordered Coe to pay to the plaintiffs, with one half the costs.
The bill charged a fraudulent intention in Coe, in this transaction, and a fraudulent combination between him and the other defendants, to deprive the plaintiffs of the title to their land without an equivalent, or any just compensation; but this part of the bill was not proved.
Turner conveyed the remainder of said land to Joseph Hale, for certain purposes stated in the bill, which it is unnecessary to specify, in trust for Mrs. Turner; and J. Hale made out and delivered to her a good and valid deed of the land. This deed not having been recorded, she, afterwards, with the knowledge of J. Hale, destroyed and cancelled it; and the title to the land, according to the finding of the court, was left in J. Hale, in trust for her. He, in violation of his trust, immediately thereafter, sold and conveyed away the land to sundry persons, and received the money paid therefor; for which he has never accounted. The value of the land so held in trust by him, was found to be 790 dollars, which, with the interest to the time of the decree, amounting to 1109 dollars, the court ordered him to pay to the plaintiffs, together with half the costs. The fraud and fraudulent combination alleged in the bill, in relation to him, were not proved.
Bevins was dismissed without costs; and Hezekiah Hale recovered costs.
Joseph Coe and Joseph Hale thereupon brought the present writ of error.
Staples, for the defendants in error,
moved this Court to quash the writ of error, on the ground that William, Bevins and Hezekiah Hale, who were parties to the record below, were not made plaintiffs in error. On a judgment against several parties, the writ of error must be brought in all their names; and if it be brought by one or more of them, short of the whole number, it may be quashed. Ball v. Richards, 3 Salk. 146. Vavasor & al. v. Faux, 1 Wils. 88. Phelps v. Ellsworth, 3 Day 144. Andrews & al. v. Bosworth, 3 Mass. Rep. 223. Barnwell v. Grant, Style 190. Cannon v. Abbot, 1 Lev. 210. Verelst & al. v. Rafael, Cowp. 255. According to the English practice there may be summons and severance; yet all must join in bringing the writ of error. In this state, the benefit of a judgment of severance may be had, without the form; but the writ of error here, as well as in England, must be brought in the names of all. Hyde v. Tracy, 2 Day 491.—If the judgment of the court below be reversed, the cause will be open for a rehearing; but Bevins and H. Hale will be out of court.
Daggett, contra,
contended, That those, persons only, who were parties to the record, and prejudiced by the judgment, could properly join in bringing a writ of error. This is espec ially the case with regard to defendants in a suit in chancery, who have separate and distinct interests, and in relation to whom, separate and distinct decrees are passed. Bevins and H. Hale were not aggrieved by the judgment below. In Hyde v. Tracy, 2 Day, 491. where separate decrees had been passed, by the court below, against several defendants, it was held, that one of them, who was satisfied with the decree as it respected himself, could not withdraw a writ of error brought in the names of all, but that the others might proceed without him.
Daggett and Stanley, for the plaintiffs in error,
contended, 1. That the plaintiffs had adequate remedy at law. First, as against Joseph Hale: on the facts found an action of account for the money received by him, was the proper remedy. Secondly, as to Joseph Coe: on the facts found, the deed to Hezekiah Hale was an escrow, and the condition not being performed, the title did not pass. Fairbanks, admr. v. Metcalf, 8 Mass Rep. 230. Wheelwright v. Wheelright, 2 Mass. Rep. 447. Hatch & ux. v. Hatch & al. 9 Mass. Rep. 307. 2 Bla. Comm. 306, 7. 1 Swift’s Dig. 179, 180.

Opinion:
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The motion made to quash this writ of error, because William Bevins and Hezekiah Hale, in whose favour judgment was rendered in the court below, did not join with the plaintiffs, in bringing it, ought not to prevail. No person can sustain a writ of error to reverse a judgment, who was not injured by it, and is, therefore, to receive advantage from its reversal. 2 Bac. Abr. 456. Gwil. ed. Bevins and H. Hale derived no prejudice, but a benefit, from the judgment; and how can they maintain a writ to set it aside ? Where an infant has joined with an adult in a fine, the infant alone may bring a writ of error, because he alone has cause of complaint. 2 Bac. Abr. 458. Gwil. ed. Cannon v. Abbot, 1 Lev. 210. Parker v. Lawrence & al. Hob. 70. n. Barnwell v. Grant, Style 190. In the case of Vaughan v. Loriman & al. Cro.Jac. 138. it was adjudged, that if there be five defendants, and three of them be acquitted, a writ of error must be brought in the names of the other two only Vide Verelst & al. v. Rafael, Cowp. 425.
It has been truly said, that if the judgment is reversed, Bevins and H. Hale will not be parties to the suit below; but, for a reason which disarms the observation of its intended force, the judgment in their favour, as it ought to do, will remain
The motion to quash must be disallowed.
The other Judges were of the same opinion.
Motion denied
The case was then argued