PRIOE V. OOLEMAN.
issued and accepted. The decree asked for in this bill would afford no relief whatever without other and independent proceedings at law. It would simply keep the money in the treasury. No decree for the payment of the money could be made, because a judgment against the city, at law, would be ample for that purpose where a judg-nent could be had, and no such decree is asked. But, in the case of these bonds, it was held in Kennedy v. Sacramento, 8upra, that a judgment at law against the city could not be obtained under the statute. For the same reasons, no decree in equity could be had, even if the court had jurisdiction in other respects to enter such a decree. But it has none, as the remedy, if any, would be a judgment at law. The decree asked does not appear to be ancillary to any proceeding at law now pending, or even contemplated, to obtain the money if retained in the treasury. But if it is the duty of the treasurer to pay these coupons out of the funds alleged to be in the treal> lry, the most ( 'reet, speedy, and effective way to obtain payment is by mandamu8 in a court of law. This remedy is complete and adequate. 1G would not only prevent the money from being diverted to other purposes,-all that this bill seeks,-but would secure the payment of the overdue coupons held by complainant, and be, in itself, a full and adequate remed)" while that sought in this bill could only be ancillary t.o some other remedy in a court of law, to which complainant would be driven at last. The bill, in my judgment, presents no case of equitable cognizance. The preliminary injunction must be denied, the demurrer to the bill flustained, and the bill dismissed; and it is so ordered.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Massachusetts.
l:leptember 3, 1884.)
EQUITY-PLEADING-MuLTIFARlOUSNESB-AcTION BY RECEIVER OF NATIONAL BANK,
Where a bill, brought by the receiver of a national bank against all of the directors holding office during the existence of t'le bank, the legal representatives of deceased directors, and the cashiers of the bank, joins claims for losses suffered by the bank by reason of the directors' negligence and inattention, and claims for losses suffered by the stockholders by reason of having been induced to subscribe for new shares by misrepresentations of the directors, it is multifarious, 2.
Where such a bill does not state the dates of the losseR sustained bv the corporation, nor the dates of the acts or omissions contributing to those losses, with sufficient certainty to inform each of the defendants with which and how many of the losses it is sought to charge him, it is demurrable.
In Equity. A. A. Banney and J. R. Clark, for complainant.
E. R. Hoar, Henry Baldwin, J. W. Richardson, Sherman rJ Bell. Richard Stone, Geo. F. Williams, Jesse F. Wheeler, J.osepk Cuttler, Morse <f Allen, and Brooks <f Nichols, for defendants. Before GRAY and NELSON, JJ. GRA.Y, Justice. To the bill in its present shape the demurrers for multifariousness and for uncertainty are well taken. The bill is clearly multifarious in joining claims for 106ses suffered by the corporation by reason of the directors' negligence and inattention, and claims for losses suffered by the stockholders by reason of ha.ving been induced to subscribe for new shares by misrepresentations of the directors. The bill, brought against all those who were directors during various periods of time, does not state the dates of the losses sustainecl by the. corporation, nor the dates of the acts or omissions contributing to those losses, with sufficient certainty to inform each of the defendants with which and how many of the losses it is sought to charge him. The bill must be amended, in these respects, at least, before the court can justly or intelligently determine, as between the complainant and the several defendants, whether the bill is multifarious in joining as defendants those who were directors at different times; whether it sets forth a liability upon which the complainant can maintain a in equity; and whether it seta forth a cause of action which survives against representatives of deceased directors. Demurrers sustained, with costs; leave to amend the bill.
HENDERElON v. CENTRA.L PASSENGER By. CO.l VENTRAL PA.SSENGER By. Co. v. LOUISVILLE CrTY By. CO.l
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Ke'rLtuclcy. July 22, 1884.)
FRANCUISl!l- RAThROAD CORPORATION l:'OWER. CONsTR UCTION OF GRANT MOTIVlll
CORPORATION-SALE OF FRANCHISE- WHA'l' PASSES THEREBy-REPEAL OF FRANCHTSE-CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Hteported by Geo. Du Relle, Asst. U. S Atty.