Opinion ID: 1110253
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ancient Bill of Peace

Text: ¶ 16. According to American Bankers, Booth argued in the trial court that even if his complaint did not meet the requirements for class relief, he should be permitted to proceed via a `Bill of Peace' because the relief he seeks on behalf of the absent plaintiff class is `similar' to that provided by a Bill of Peace. American Bankers argues that the representative class action Booth is seeking to maintain bears no resemblance to the ancient bill of peace. Booth apparently has abandoned his bill of peace argument, failing to assert it on appeal; nevertheless, we will address this issue. Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys. v. Hawkins, 781 So.2d 899, 900-01 (Miss.2001) (review may extend[ ] to the full scope of the interests of justice). ¶ 17. The ancient bill of peace was a procedural vehicle employed when equitable relief was needed to prevent the hardship which would result from prosecuting or defending numerous actions at law. Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 192 (Miss.1995). While the label `bill of peace' may not have survived the adoption of the M.R.C.P., the chancery court's authority to grant substantive relief through equity remains viable and available. Id. The chancery court's equity jurisdiction may properly be invoked to enjoin a multiplicity of successive suits at law by the same plaintiff(s). Id. at 193. The chancery court may also exercise its equity jurisdiction to prevent a multiplicity of suits by joining all parties in one suit and determining the sole question upon which past, present, and future liability rests. Id. ¶ 18. In the case sub judice, Booth is attempting to represent absent, unknown class members who have not yet filed a suit. The ancient bill of peace was not a class action, but instead, a procedural device for joining a multiplicity of suits to avoid the hardship which would result from prosecuting or defending numerous actions at law. While the ancient writ remains viable under the chancery court's authority to grant substantive relief, though not under the same label, it cannot be used merely to multiply a single claim, as is the case here.