Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Opinion of the Court.

bought at the state dispensary of South Carolina and bought out of the State is about fifty to seventy-five per cent in favor of imported liquors."

Such statements sufficiently concede that the pecuniary value of plaintiff's rights in controversy exceed the value of two thousand dollars. Nor can it be reasonably claimed that the plaintiff must postpone his application to the Circuit Court, as a court of equity, until his property to an amount exceeding in value two thousand dollars has been actually seized and confiscated, and when the preventive remedy by injunction would be of no avail.

But while we think that the complainant was entitled to an injunction against those defendants who had despoiled him of his property, and who were threatening to continue so to do, we are unable to wholly approve the decree entered in this case.

The theory of the decree is that the plaintiff is one of a class of persons whose rights are infringed and threatened, and that he so represents such class that he may pray an injunction on behalf of all persons that constitute it. It is, indeed, possible that there may be others in like case with the plaintiff, and that such persons may be numerous, but such a state of facts is too conjectural to furnish a safe basis upon which a court of equity ought to grant an injunction. We prefer to accept, in this respect, the views expressed by Mr. Justice Nelson, in the case of Cutting v. Gilbert, 5 Blatchford, 259, 261. There a bill had been filed by several bankers, as well for themselves as all others in the same interest, against the assessor and collector of a certain tax under the ninety-ninth section of the Internal Revenue Act of June 30, 1864, seeking to restrain the collection of such tax as illegal, and the learned justice disposed of the question in the following language:

"This is a bill of peace to quiet the rights of parties, and to put an end to further litigation. The bill is founded on the idea that all persons in business as brokers, or who are bankers doing business as brokers, charged with the tax in question, have such a unity or joinder of interest in contesting it, that all may join in the bill for that purpose; and that as the

Opinion of the Court.

parties are so numerous as to make it inconvenient to join all of them, a determinate number may appear in the name of themselves and for the rest. I have not been able to concur in this view. The interest that will allow parties to join in a bill of complaint, or that will enable the court to dispense with the presence of all the parties, when numerous, except a determinate number, is not only an interest in the question, but one in common in the subject-matter of the suit; such as the case of disputes between the lord of a manor and his tenants; or where several tenants of a manor claim the profits of a fair or between the tenants of one manor and those of another; or in a suit to settle a general fine to be paid by all the copyhold tenants of a manor, in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits. In all these and the like instances given in the books, there is a community of interest growing out of the nature and condition of the right in dispute; for, although there may not be any privity between the numerous parties, there is a common title out of which the question arises, and which lies at the foundation of the proceedings. In the case

;

before me, the only matter in common among the plaintiffs, or between them and the defendants, is an interest in the question involved, which alone cannot lay a foundation for the joinder of parties. There is scarcely a suit at law, or in equity, which settles a principle or applies a principle to a given state of facts, or in which a general statute is interpreted, that does not involve a question in which other parties are interested, as, for instance, the doctrine of trusts, and the statutes of descents, of frauds, of wills and the like; yet no lawyer would contend that such an interest would justify a joinder of parties as plaintiffs, in a case arising under the law of trusts, or under any of the statutes mentioned. The same may be said of questions arising under the revenue laws, such as the tariff and the excise laws, and which are the subject of litigation in the courts almost daily. Large classes of persons, other than the parties to the suit, are interested in the questions involved and determined. To allow them to be made parties to the suit would confound the established order of judicial proceedings, and lead to endless perplexity and confusion."

Opinion of the Court.

Similar views prevailed in the case of Baker v. City of Portland, 5 Sawyer, 566, where it was held by District Judge Deady, Mr. Justice Field concurring, that any number of persons who may from time to time be engaged in making street improvements under several and distinct contracts with a city are not therefore a class of persons having a common interest in the subject of street improvements, concerning which any one or more may sue for the whole.

The decree is also objectionable because it enjoins persons not parties to the suit. This is not a case where the defendants named represent those not named. Nor is there alleged any conspiracy between the parties defendant and other unknown parties. The acts complained of are tortious, and do not grow out of any common action or agreement between constables and sheriffs of the State of South Carolina. We have, indeed, a right to presume that such officers, though not named in this suit, will, when advised that certain provisions of the act in question have been pronounced unconstitutional by the court to which the Constitution of the United States refers such questions, voluntarily refrain from enforcing such provisions; but we do not think it comports with well-settled principles of equity procedure to include them in an injunction in a suit in which they were not heard or represented, or to subject them to penalties for contempt in disregarding such an injunction. Fellows v. Fellows, 4 John. Chan. 25, citing Iveson v. Harris, 7 Ves. 257.

The decree of the court below should therefore be amended by being restricted to the parties named as plaintiff and defendants in the bill, and this is directed to be done, and it is otherwise

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BROWN dissented, for the reason given by him in his dissent in Scott v. Donald, ante, 102.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER did not hear the argument and took no part in the decision of this case.

Decree of the Court.

MISSOURI v. IOWA.

ORIGINAL.

No. 6. Original. Report filed December 14, 1896. -Decree entered January 18, 1897.

The report of the commissioners appointed February 3, 1896, 160 U. S. 688, to find and re-mark the boundary line between the States of Missouri and Iowa, is confirmed; and it is ordered that that boundary line be as delineated and set forth in said report.

Mr. R. F. Walker, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, for that State.

Mr. Milton Remley, Attorney General of the State of Iowa, for that State.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER announced the decree of the court.

This cause coming on to be heard on the application of the State of Missouri, the State of Iowa consenting thereto, for decree on the report of James Harding, Peter A. Dey and Dwight C. Morgan, commissioners appointed by decretal order herein on February 3, 1896, to find and re-mark with proper and durable monuments such portions of the proper boundary line between the States of Missouri and Iowa, as run, marked and located by Hendershott and Minor, commissioners of this court, under the orders and decrees of this court of February 13, 1849, and January 3, 1851, as have become obliterated, especially between the fiftieth and fifty-fifth mile posts on the same; and it appearing that a difference of opinion has arisen in respect of certain allowances to be included in the expenses incurred in re-marking said boundary line, it is ordered by the court that Commissioner Morgan be allowed his per diem for forty-six days' services, and that the account of expenses attached to said report be completed by the addition of that per diem in favor of said commissioner, and that said report as so completed in that particular be and the same is hereby in all things confirmed, as follows:

Decree of the Court.

"To the honorable the Supreme Court of the United States: "The undersigned, commissioners, appointed by the decree of your honorable court dated February 3, 1896, to find and re-mark with proper and durable monuments such portions of the boundary line between the States of Missouri and Iowa, run, marked and located by Hendershott and Minor in accordance with decree of your honorable court dated Jan. 3, 1851, as have become obliterated, especially between the fiftieth and fifty-fifth mile posts on said line, etc., respectfully submit the following report:

"On the 27th day of February last the commissioners met in the city of Chicago and fully discussed matters pertinent to the proper performance of the duties imposed upon them. Construing the decree as applying to all portions of the boundary line in question, the commissioners decided to advertise in newspapers published in counties in Missouri and Iowa adjacent to the boundary for information regarding such parts of said line as were in dispute or had become obliterated. This was done and considerable information elicited, but as the officials of one of the States interested declined to authorize the work necessary in retracing the line, excepting where directed in the decree, nothing was done beyond the finding and re-marking with proper and durable monuments' such portions of the line as was necessary for its proper relocation between the 40th and 60th mile points, as shown hereinafter. "After careful consideration it was decided to apply to Gen'l W. W. Duffield, superintendent U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, for a detail from his corps of assistants to perform all field-work necessary in carrying out the instructions. of the court. It was decided that the employment of expert officers of the Geodetic Survey corps for the services required would result more satisfactorily to the States concerned than would the selection of any private parties, as the high professional attainments of these officers and their freedom from any possible bias regarding the boundary line to be established were ample guarantees for the entire reliability and impartiality of any work done by them.

"Correspondence was accordingly had with Gen'l Duffield,

« AnteriorContinuar »