*1 McD02TAJ,J> V. MORRIS.
The court erred in exception overruling granting judg- ment for the The defendants. must be reversed, it is so ordered. Let this be'certified. Reversed.
A. M. McDONALD v. B. J. MORRIS others.
Parties. In an bond purchase defend ant’s money of claiming title to the land adverse Conn, necessary party. not a ?$184, 189, Tun con- by MerrijioN, strued J. Koonee, v. (Colgrove 0., 863; (J., 277, v. Wade 70 R". cited and approved). Civm ActioN tried at Term, 1882, Spring Supe- Moore rior before J. Court, Shipp, fall term, 1876, of the court Moore the defendant B.
superior county J. Mor- ris, specified bond dated 6th day of March, 1874, for $617.
The defendant admitted his answer execution of the and that the same had bond been set as a paid; plaintiff's bond was given for a tract of land purchase money answer; had no thereto; that the deeds under which title from derived one Matthews and the title in the heirs-at-law of was Matthews. term, 1879, court, instance of the spring heirs-at-law defendant, likewise filed an answer to IN THE SUPREME COURT. Morms. *2 of the of the
the complaint they, support the of the defendant that had alleged plaintiff that his deeds mentioned; therefor, title to two to be made by Matthews, were purporting of her mental to execute and incapacity that them; to the land was in and demanded the title judg- that the deeds held the to be exe- ment by plaintiff purporting delivered to ancestor, be the cuted by Mary cancelled, that the court decree the title to and and be court them. made the time order was the said making defendant, and insisted that thereto,
parties plaintiff objected to this in no necessary action, proper parties insisted. overruled at the so The court and, trial, again made and held that and objection, had; A trial was several issues were sub- excepted. mitted to the out answers jury growing the said heirs-at-law; verdict jury, Morris the defendants that the did for therefor, that his deeds land; purporting not Matthews, were void; deeds executed plain- not make title to defendants for the tiff could cancelled; surrender the bond sued to be upon, costs. day the defendants Thereupon this court. appealed and John Manning, Hinsdale & JDevereux Messrs. E. for defendants. Murehison, W. A. Guthrie and W. Messrs. after above. Broad MekriMON, J., stating compre- of as are provisions hensive Code (§§184 189), made additional to be parties requiring allowing think construction of them would, do we allow or the heirs-at-law case, aspect require at all. defendant, or indeed, parties d. Mobuxs. The statute that all contemplates persons com- determination of the plete matter controversy, litigation, and affected the same in some as between the original action, may, some instances, and must in others, or defendant. But parties plaintiff it does not imply have cause of any person tiff alone, or cause the defendant unaf- alone, fected the cánse of action as between the and defen- dant, or must be made a It does not contemplate the determination of two and distinct causes of action, as between the and a third the defendant and party, a third in the same party, action. It is when, only other original parties are material or *3 litigant, inter- it is ested, to make them parties. Colgrove Koonce, 363; C., Wade v. N. C., 277. As defendant Morris the heirs- at-law of no have interest whatever. They have no interest this adverse to the controversy plaintiff’; they are not determination or complete settlement of involved therein. questions
This is not an action of real possession estate, but is an action to a sum certain duo a upon bond, whether the has question mentioned is a collateral one. The court can determine the con- before it between the troversy defendant original plaintiff .and without to the heirs-at-law of and a prejudice Mary Matthews, determination of the matter in can be had complete Nor is this an action for the presence. recovery either real or a personal property, party having an interest therein ask to be made a Nor is it an a contract, or for real or upon specific personal property, a defendant time before wherein answer and may, any upon affidavit, that a to the action and suggest person, party with him a him, without collusion makes demand for and have such debt property, party THE IN SUPREME COURT.
McDonam) v. Morris. substitution for himself. These are the several respects specified in the sections of The Code cited above, which additional to an none of them parties may apply However the decide any whether for the question, absence of the plaintiff’ heirs of cannot be or affected in prejudiced are in no essential in this liti- respect gation.
It ivas asked in the here, what has argument injury tiff sustained reason of the the action of the heirs, admitting necessary parties.
It is sufficient to does not say, law allow unnecessary into an action. improper parties has to have his action tried its right merits, uninfluenced concern v'ith it. -by persons How unaffected far in this case the suffered in a detriment, of- variety n ways active might easily suggested, by participation aof number of anxious to great -establish their own to the. it is determine. right seem to impossible They have been and their very active, seems to have been to purpose a lawsuit between the try dis- themselves, entirely tinct and from this action. have a They may and about the land mentioned in the but their pleadings; right unaffected, will *4 remain so litigation; rights defendant can be settled without their completely this action.
There are numerous exceptions court, rulings in the but record, we need not as them, we pass upon hold that on the one considered, is entitled to a new trial.
There is and a new trial error, must be awarded to the plain- and it is so tiff, ordered. Let this bo certified. de Venire novo. TERM,
OCTOBER 1S83. v. Commissioners. Marshall In samo case defendants’ appeal: of the heirs-at-law of J. This is appeal MeeiuMON, decided at this term between the Matthews, the case a new trial was awarded to the which parties, in this court to appeal prayed appellants adjudge under and virtue of which the deeds, decree tiff claimed to derive from Mary and that these deeds bo surrendered and that the same be cancelled. court, The court declined to grant prayer appellants; and recover day, from costs the plaintiff. we have decided that the
In the appellants plaintiff’s appeal action; were not proper parties appeal improperly a new trial. was entitled to and as the
As they proper parties, with the not in to have any respect plaintiff was sought declined to grant germane no action between them and the There was prayer. demanded. them to relief that entitled affirmed. Let this be certified. is no error. There Judgment Affirmed. No error. Y OF STANL v. COMMISSIONERS others MARSHALL JOSEPH COUNTY. Injunction. alleges hearing, granted where until injunction will
1. An apparent and makes out irreparable injury