Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Photograph to Preliminary Examination >> Plaintiffs


join, ch, ed, ala, joined and husband

PLAINTIFFS. All persons having a unity of interest in the subject-matter; Alston v. Jones, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 397; Brooks v. Harrison, 2 Ala. 209; and in the object to be attained; Gartside v. Gartside, 113 Mo. 348, 20 S. W. 669; Bosher v. Land Co., 89 Va. 455, 16 S. E. 360, 37 Am. St. Rep. 879; who are entitled to relief ; Wilkins v. Judge, 14 Ala. 135; may join as plaintiffs. The rights claimed must not arise under different con tracts ; Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 123, 8 L. Ed. 889 ; Finley v. Harrison, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 154; or be vested in the same person in different capacities; May v. Smith, 45 N. C. 196, 59 Am. Dec. 594. And see Ed meston v. Lyde, 1 Paige (N. Y.) 637, 19 Am. Dec. 454 ; Ingraham v. Dunnell, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 118. Persons representing antago nistic interests cannot be joined as complain ants; Smith v. Smith, 102 Ala. 516, 14 South. 765.

Assignor and assignee. The assignor of a contract for the sale of lands should be join ed in a suit by the assignee for specific per formance; Voorhees v. De Myer, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 614 ; and the assignor of part of his interest in a patent in a suit by as signee for violation ; Morgan v. Tipton, 3 McLean 350, Fed. Cas. No. 9,809.

But he should not be joined where he has parted with all his legal and beneficial in terest ; Miller v. Whittier, 32 Me. 203; Moor v. Veazie, 32 Me. 343, 52 Am. Dec. 655 ; Lea cock v. Hall, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 210. The assignee of a mere chose in action may sue in his own name, in equity ; Barribeau v. Brant, 17 How. (U. S.) 43, 15 L. Ed. 34; Cottrell v. Giltner, 5 Wis. 270.

Corporations. Two or more may join if their interest is joint ; 8 Ves. 706. A corpo ration may join with its individual members to establish an exemption on their behalf ; 3 Anstr. 738. Corporations themselves are indispensable parties to a bill which affects their corporate rights or liabilities; Swan Land & Cattle Co. v. Frank, 148 U. S. 603, 13 Sup. Ct. 691, 37 L. Ed. 577.

Husband and wife join where the husband asserts an interest in behalf of his wife ; Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. (N.

Y.) 196 ; as, for a legacy ; Schuyler v. Hoyle, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 196; or for property de vised or descended to her during coverture; Griffith v. Coleman, 5 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 600; or where he applies for an injunction to re strain a suit at law against both, affecting her interest; Green v. Hicks, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 313. Where a widow sues to set aside a deed executed by herself and hus band on the ground that it was procured by fraud, the administrator of the husband is not a necessary party ; Keenan v. Keenan, 58 Hun 605, 12 N. Y. Supp. 747.

Under modern statutes for the enlarge ment of the rights and remedies of married women, it is in many cases unnecessary to join the husband in suits to which lie was formerly a necessary party. See MARRIED WOMAN.

Idiots and lunatics may be joined or not in bills by their committees, at the election of the committee, to set aside acts done by them whilst under imbecility ; Ortley •v. Mes sere, 7 Johns. Oh. (N. Y.) 139. They must be joined in suits brought for the partition of real estate ; Gorham v. Gorham, 3. Barb, Ch. (N. Y.) 24. In England it seems to be the custom to join; 2 Vern. 678. See Story, Eq. Pl. § 64; Story, Eq. Jur. § 1336.

Infants. Several may join in the same bill for an account of the rents and profits of their estate; Townshend v. Duncan, 2 Bland. (Md.) 68.

TrUstee and cestui que trust should, it is held, join in a bill to recover the trust fund; Jennings' Ex'rs v. Davis, 5 Dana (Ky.) 128; but need not to foreclose a mortgage ; Heirs of Pugh v. Currie, 5 Ala. •447; nor to redeem one made by the trustee; Boyden v. Part ridge, 2 Gray (Mass.). 190. And see Schenck v. Ellingwood, 3 Edw. Ch.. (N. Y.) 175; Hitchcoek's Heirs V. Bank, 7 Ala. 386.

An appeal may be prosecuted by one party to the record, as against another, without joining other parties who are in no way interested in the controversy; Postal Tele graph Cable Co. v. Vane, 80 Fed. 961, 26 C. C. A. 342.