'LOVETT '17. PRENTIcE;
sippi Company, the latter company threatened to termtna.te the and took action to that end. The Baltimore & Ohio Company; tHe<i a, I bill to enjoin the other company from disr,egarding and terminating its'l said contract by withdrawing its cars and other iacilities from the I plainant in that bill, and the express' matter to some other 'cbrn'; pany. There is no clause in the contract under our consideration sitoilar or equivalent to the paragraph quoted from the Ohio case, and yet' that bill, presenting a case than the one here, was dismi8sed ' upon demurrer alter able and elaborate argument. If that bill couId} not be sustained, certainly this cannot be, unless it be, as maintained" on complainant's behalf, that this contract gives an interest in realty by" allowing the use of the depot and tracks. It is clear that the contract;1 gives no such interest. Complainant under. it has no possession of the I depot or control of the tracks. ." I conclude, therefore, that the injunction should be dissolved; .buttiri I order that complainant may have opportunity to meet the exil1:enciesofl its situation, this dissolution will not go into effect until the 1st day 'of' March next, at which date the dissolution will become absolute. ,.
'. · r: " . :
-, .· : : ""
LoVETTet .al. '17. PRENTICE.
(Co£rcuU CO'U"rt, D. Mo£nnesota. December lU, 1l1l1O.)
1n a suit by the owners of separate 10tB. wboderive title from a common grintor,: to quiet their title as against a defendant who,claims to own all the lots. the amoil'nt., In controversy is the value of all the lots owned by the complainants, and notthei value of separate lots of each. .
0 , 0 , '
In Equity. The complainants, Charles E. I,ovett, Frank R. Webber, C. A. Stew'; art,and R. T. Lewis, allege that they are severally the owners itl fee certain tracts of land situate in St. Louis coUrity, state of Minnesota; in' Duluth proper, third division, according to the recorded plat . The particular lot owned by each plaintiff is given, and it is furth,er stated that the lands described area part of a certain tract described a'cto the government survey, which had beE'n laid out h\to town lots, which are owned by 700 diflerimt persons. That an unJivided" one-half interest of eaeh of the said 'lots is Claimed and owned in sev- I eraltyunder conveyances as a cpmmonsource of) title. That Gilman acquired title to the said undivided one-halt' inter.est under a deed from Benjamin Armstrong and wife, dated August30 l 1864.' That Armstrong and wife, 11, 1856, executed and , delivered a deed to the dt:fendant, F'rederickPreritice, which was duly recorned, of certain real estate described and boun'ded as follows: ,. "Oneu'ntlividell i of all the following descfil,>ed piece or parcel of land, ,sit-: nate intlie' county of St. LOUis, and territory of Miuuellota, and known and
described as follows j to-wit: Beginning at a large stone or rock at the head of St. Louis River bay, nearly adjoining Minnesota point; commencing at said rock, and running east one mile, north one mile, west one mile, south one mile, to the place of beginning, and being the land set off to the Indian chief Buffalo at the Indian treaty of September 30, A. D. 18M, and which was afterwards disposed of by said Buffalo to said Armstrong, and is now recorded with the government documents."
That none of the plaintiffs' lands are included in or intended to be described in the Prentice deed, and that Prentice wrongfully claims that the plaintiffs' lots are included in the land described in the Armstrong deed to him. It is further charged that defendant claims ownership, and has brought ejectment suits against several persons other than the plaintiffs above specifically named, and alleges that this suit is brought, not only on their own behalf, but in behalf of others claiming any interest in any of the lands which has been derived or claimed from J. M. Gilman', lis aforesaid, and to whose said interest an adverse claim of title is set up by said defendant as against.the Gilman title, and who may come .tq ,be mnde parties plaintiff to this action. The relief claimed is a judgment adjudging that Gilman owned an undivided one-half of the land described in the Armstrong deed to him August 31, 1864, and that said title be quieted and settled as against the adverse claim of the defendant, Prentice, and that he be perpetually enjoined from, claiming or asserting, in law or equity,. any right, title, or interest adversely to the Gilman title as against the plaintiffs and others similarly situated, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem just, etc. An answer isfiled asserting that the defendant is the OWner it!. fee-simple of an undivided one-half of all the lands in said complaint described, and praying judgllJ,ent "(1) that plaintiffs take nothing by action; (2). tbat defendant is the owner of an undivided I of the land, and that he nave possession, "etc. A stipulation is filed and signed by the parties that the amount in dispute between the complainant Lewis and defendant is less than $2,000, and so, also, between the compll\inant Stewart an,d.d!;Jfendl1utj and a plea in abatement is filed based upon the stipu18jtion; and it is urged the criterion of jurisdiction of the federal court is value of the particular lot owned by Lewis or by Webher. This case is. removed from the state court to the United States circuit court. . )V;. W. Bit(srJ:n, for complainants. . Kitchel, Cohen &- BMW, for defendant.
:NEJ,SON, J.,(ajterstating thefacts as above.) Sufficient appears to show tnat'this suit belongs to a class over which equity has jurisdiction, although t,he bil1 Of complaint is framed with reference to the provisions of t1:Jestatute of the state of Minnesota, (section 4, c. 75, Gen. St. Minn. 1878.) ,aqtion upon principles of equity is permitted in order to . avoid a multiplicity of suits, and the determination of the motion to rani,a.nddepends upon whether the amount in in. the suit is' sUfficient to court jurisdiction, and entitle the defendants to reml/ve ,the sailie. ,'The suit is instituted to. determine the title to the ensettle the disputed; claim of the defeJ;lPl¥lt. He
GUILD tt. PHILLIPS.
is a common adversary, and complainants have a common source of title. While they respectively claim to own separate and specific lots, divided out of the large tract described in the complaint, (and so far their interests may be separate and distinct,) yet the controversy is in regard to a common title, in which the several complainants are collectively interested, and in which they have a community of interest. The relief asked is to establish the Gilman title and also the right of each individual complainant to the specific tract claimed. The suit belongs to that class where a person claims a right against a great number of individuals claiming under the same general right. Equity then interferes by obliging the party to abide by the event of a single issue. Or where a number of persons claim distinct rights in the same subject, and there must necessarily be a multiplicity of suits, a bill is filed to put an end to the controversy by a single suit; or, as better expressed by Mr. Pomeroy, (see 1 Pom.Eq. Jur. § 245 and "Where anum ber of persons have separate and individual claims and rights of action against the same party, but all arise from some common cause, are governed by the same legal rule, and involve similar facts, and the whole: mlltter might be settled in a single suit brought hyall these pPfson::\unitiJlg. as co-plaintiffs, or one of the persons suing in behalf of the others, eyen, by one person suing for himself alone." ' , ' "', .,', The complainants here hlwe anidentityof the value of the matter in measured by the value (:If: all the land represented and claimed by the complainants is denied, and not by the value of the separate lots of each; Th.e amount of all the lots represented by the Complainants is suffici,ent ,to: give the right of relpoval, and the motion to denied. Iti/J sq Qrdered.
(Oircuit Oourt, N. D. Gllorg1.a. .Octobell,1888.,
JUDGMENT-BILL TO SET ASIDE-FRAUD.,
Where a bill in eqUity alleges that complainant's consent to a compromise dE\cree' in former litigation between same parties, was obta,ined by a fraudulent withholding by defendants of important and material facts. well known to them, and unknown to complainants, which facts would pr6bably have controlled the case in com" plainant's favor, the facts being here fully stated, and prays a decree setting aside the former decree, and demurrer is filed, held, demurrer will be overruled.
SAME""'-EvIDENCE OF FRAI:D.
G.,conveyed land to his wife and children'. Subsequently suit was G. on a promissory note by his sister, Mrs. P. JudgOlent was obtained and exooj1tion issued on the judgment levied on land cOnveyed to wife and children. They filed bill alleging collusion in obtaining between G. and Mrs. P., and,tUa!;:' there, was no real indebtedness on note, WhiCh was the foundation of suit., G"llnd Mrs. P. filed sworn answers to bill, claiming bona fide indebtedness. ·There wail compromise decree, making part of land subject to ,Mrs. P;'s exeoution. Subs&' quently, during his last sickness, and shortly before his death, G.informedMrs.(,}., that "he'and his sister had wronged her; that the papers they fixed ujlwere fraud." After his death' she found in his papers a release from Mrs. P. '\0 G: ,frbta! alLliability '1n the note. Other arll 'and-al1 taklln tOgether shoW' collusu;;fi and fraud between Mrs. P. and G. ",