*1 Ct. Barney City. Syllabus.

assets which remain after the debts payment to the stockholders of the bank. expenses, belong After this decision, receiver, Ferguson appointed bank, ordered to deliver to him effects of the Robertson the which the order, he held trustee. In pursuance two suit is were to notes on the delivered brought and the name of in whom the Robertson, Ferguson, legal title is used to enforce their collection. rests, the the bank, debtor of

Lum, delinquent plead the forfeiture, of his debt judgment extinguishment the the debt exists and can for the court case say, (in cited) is the trustee to reduce recovered, be and that it of the duty to and distribute it the bank money, among property to show can Lum be the stockholders. Nor (not permitted Robertson, to the a meritorious defence suit) having is no in name the suit nominal whose brought, plaintiff*, real in interest. party longer in has notes, interest beneficial Ferguson having use the name of Robertson to a recovery. to compel right Judgment affirmed. City. Baltimore in tenants in common real estate of which partition 1. Part owners or subject-matter in the equity in have an interest asked sought, intimately so connected with that of the relief their co- tenants, subjected if these cannot be dismissed. the bill will 28th, case), February forth in the has no (set application The act of reference, position, stand but has where suits contract, others, joint obligors suits verbal at law among or written. cannot -be a to a suit citizen of the District Columbia AB. courts, citizenship on depends where the Federal parties. subject fact that a transfer or Although simple purpose vesting is made for an interest courts, jurisdic- Federal does not defeat the litigate competent Barn*ey Dec. v. Baltimore

Statement of the case. *2 tion, the real the grantee if vests interest in assignee the transaction or assignment or conveyance only, if colorable —yet, and the real- grantor assignor, or the court interest remains cannot entertain jurisdiction of the case. merits, bill on the dismissing 5. A decree in the Circuit Court will he reversed here if the Court had not and a decree of directed. prejudice dismissal without

Appeal from Circuit Court for Maryland. Act gives jurisdiction Circuit Court Judiciary “ States;” citizens controversies different Columbia, as it has been District of not held, within coming this term. act —one of

Another 28th, 1839 —enacts February thus: suit at or in wjiere, That law any commenced in equity, any States, there defendants, the United shall be several whom shall not be or more of inhabitants of or one found within suit the district where or shall not brought voluntarily be lawful for thereto, it shall the court entertain appear juris diction, to the trial and and proceed of such adjudication suit who between the it. parties properly But the rendered decree therein shall not or conclude or judgment pre served with other regularly or judice process, answer; and voluntarily appearing non-joinder inhabitants, so who are not found within the district, shall of abatement constitute no manner or other objection said suit.* law,

In this state of a citizen statutory Mary Barney, and one of heirs of Delaware, Samuel filed a Chase, bill Circuit Court United States for Maryland of Baltimore and several individuals, co- City heirs with certain them citizens of her, being Maryland, (William, and Ann and certain others Matilda, Ridgely), Columbia, District citizens to have of real partition which it was that the said Chase died estate of intes- alleged an account of and tate and to have also rents : with profits, relief incidental other the suit, the bill was dismissed

In the as to the progress * 5 Stat. at Large, Ot.

Argument for dismissal. three citizens of the amended bill District, Ridgelys, their interest in the filed, conveyed stating to one Samuel Chase property (also Ridgely and who was a defendant citizen of case), Maryland; filed that admitted writing made for the of the case purpose conferring on the Federal that it was consideration, that the on would, request reconvey, grantee grantors, to them. This Samuel Chase made his will soon Ridgely after to his three conveyance, devising property the District died Ridgelys, grantors, having during *3 it went back to them. then.con- pendency They one in the to Proud same had veyed way previously their co-defendant, to S. C. ad- conveyed Ridgely, being was mitted that the executed to remove a diffi- of the exercise of the culty way jurisdiction Court. dismissed the The Circuit Court bill a decree -whichon by a its face to be dismissal on the merits. This appeared ap- was then taken. peal the case was here, on the

Coming elaborately argued merits. But a was raised and jurisdiction discussed point latter On this the case was point previously. disposed by court; of merits not question reached. being On Messrs. point W. Schley W. H. Norris, City Baltimore, contended appellees, that the to be dismissed. citizens appeal ought Confessedly, coul'd be made District not to a suit in a Circuit Court three of State. Yet the who here were such citi zens, co-heirs with the were material complainant, parties to or bill for bill for account partition. No complete de in their could be made absence. cree was difficulty to be i’emedied S. C. conveyances sought Ridgely Proud; but the not real grants being could grants, not the case.* aid Executors, Cranch, 98; Russell Clark’s Shields v. Barrow, 11

Howard, Kernochen, Id. ; 139 Smith Doc. v. Baltimore

Opinion the court. Messrs. Brent and Williams, contra: as one of the Mary co-heirs of her has a Barney, father, to sue for her individual right interest. A undivided though decree for a division the territorial of each merely right fixes tenant. A decree as between the would present parties work no to those prejudice nor to over whom absent, those has no jurisdiction. could to no be They subject other inconvenience than of a tribunal, second suit in another which is no reason case; to refuse decree in established doctrine that the Circuit will Court ousted of its absence of substantial over whom it eau exercise no if the interest be power, from separable .those before An is in it. estate in common its -nature As to the account for rents and separable. profits, as an that, incident, would follow the wake of the land. But if this be otherwise, still Samuel Chase Ridgely, citizen of Maryland, become of all the estate of seized the three District his life all the Ridgelys, during par ties and all the interests were before the court. properly The court of all so far as their having parties, character in regard will concerned, citizenship lose it because of a subsequent residence. The change devisees of S. C. R. stand therefore in his shoes, although *4 residents of the In District.* the addition, District Ridgelys since the death of S. C. having, R., a Proud, conveyed citizen of to these Maryland, proceedings only —the now are a citizen of Delaware, parties with all complainant, citizens defendants, Maryland. Plainly jurisdic tion exists. the act of 28th

Finally, 1839, February, places matter doubt. beyond

Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the of opinion court. The first which the question record before us is, presents whether the Circuit Court of the District of Maryland, sit- as a court of could ting chancery, entertain jurisdiction of

* Morgan Morgan, 2 Wheaton, Ct.

Opinion of the court. in interest the case. The arises reference to the difficulty and Matilda in Ann, "William, subject-matter Ridgely, resolves itself into two distinct inquiries, litigation, namely: render a decree a bill of Can a court of chancery suit, as it, without before character parties having their ?

some interest person capable representing did cannot, if it the contrivance resorted 2. And secondly, taken in to S. C. con- to, Proud, Ridgely conveying facts on nection with the admitted enable the subject, of the case court to take ? on the to suits in subject parties chancery learning a limited extent, and within

is copious, principles are introduction their flexible. There is class of govern relations to the such matter having controversy, persons that while be called otherwise, formal they may merely the court will no take account the omission parties, proper to make them There is another class of parties. persons the suit are such, whose relations to that if their interest and their absence to the attention of the formally brought will them to be made court, it if within its require parties before But case. if this cannot be deciding done, it will administer such relief as be in proceed And there is a its it. third parties power, interests in the whose class, subject-matter suit, are so bound with in the relief that of the other up sought, that their legal presence parties, proceeding an absolute which the court cannot necessity, pro- cases the In such court refuses to entertain the ceed. cannot be these to its subjected when jurisdiction. cannot be better described class than This language Barrow,* Shields which a able and very discussion of whole is had. satisfactory subject They “ who said to be have an are there persons interest only an interest such that a nature, controversy, *5 cannot be made without either thatin decree final affecting

* Howard, 17 Dee. Baltimore v.

Opinion of the court. terest, or that condition its such a leaving final determination be inconsistent with equity may wholly ' and conscience.” good

This describes the interest character of the aptly language land of which is Ridgelys, partition sought this and in the account which is suit, asked of rents and for, If a decree which is made, intended to bind profits. them, it to do when this are not manifestly unjust they to the and have no be But as heard. opportunity the decree bind them, court cannot for that very the relief afford to the other asked, reason parties. the decree instance, should

If, the land partition and an account, state of land allotted to the particular pieces the court, would still be undivided as to these in each whose interest would remain as before parties, piece And could at time to the partition. they any apply pro- ask a and whole court, repartition tract, unaffected per the decree because can be case, this bound no they by by are not decree to The same observa- parties. account stated court, tions rents any apply by decree and to amount due on any settling profits,, score. 1839, the act of relieve 28th,

Nor does the case February act has been That construed in difficulty. frequently never more perhaps matter pertinently cited, the case Shields v. than hand, already Barrow. “ in relation to this act, there The court says, it does case where affect interest persons having their is such that their because citizenship joinder joined, and so far as defeat the it touches would suits it to no more than we understand be in equity, legislative established of the rule the cases previously affirmance Osborn v. The Bank McRoberts,* United Cameron The act .... Handy.‡ shall States,† Harding says co,urt entertain jurisdiction; for the as is lawful ob when Hinde,§ court in Mallow v. of a served speaking 11 Id. 132. 9 Id. 738. Id. 198. Wheaton, 591. § ‡ *6 Ct. 286 Barney City. v. Baltimore Opinion of court. where case was not before the indispensable party

‘ we do not this case put upon ground broader which must to all courts much apply upon ground, urisdiction; be their structure whatever j may equity, that no court can adjudicate we on the directly put ground without the or actually upon person’s right, court;’ so that while this act re constructively as to between moved competent any difficulty par does not to dis with It ties served process, attempt regularly on which the that jurisprudence principle place the ease last mentioned.....It remains not true, rested act of and the rule, forty-seventh withstanding Congress decree Court can make no that rights affecting and can make no decree between the an absent person, which so far involves or depends before it, parties that and final of an absent person, complete justice rights affect be done those rights.”* ing render the do not act of 1889 either useless

These views while it is that in true reference to ineffectual, or act the rule chancery only pronounced proceedings, its in asserted, this court beneficial which previously in cases common law often called fluence cognizance law, It is a rule of the common where exercise. into contract, in a of several verbal joint whether obligors one he sued alone, can plead in writing, non-joinder and in cases where the abatement, joint other obligors were same citizens of the not sued State with obligors residents of some other or were district than that plaintiff, was was suit of the court brought, where serious This remedied very difficulty defeated. in such cases 1839; for can now plaintiff act prosecute one of such his suit judgment any joint obligors, he where district be found. Of this class of Far well, are Inbusch v. and others eases it. preceded † Ind. R. R. Michigan also Northern Co., Co. Central See R. R. Howard, 233. Black, Dec.

Opinion of the court. rule does not But this conflict with that under which the courts of act to make a decree, where chancery refusing of the absence of reason interested in the persons matter, *7 the be ineffectual, decree would or would affect injuriously the interest of the absent In the class of cases parties. just law, mentioned at common the his plaintiff, by judgment his the debtors, one of relief he is entitled joint gets is done to that debtor, and no because he is to, injustice only he made to was bound perform obligation legally The absent in- before. joint obligors perform are in because their no sense affected, jured, rights they their remain liable to contribution to who co-obligor n pay would have been he had by they judgment it without suit. paid therefore,

¥e of that the Circuit Court are, could opinion case, decree on the merits of render no without having before it some the interest of person rightfully representing the Bidgelys.

This leads us to the second connected with the inquiry case, of the whether namely, conveyances to Proud and C. who were citizens S. of Bidgely,. Maryland, and were made removed the defendants, difficulty growing the residence of the cut of the District of Co- Bidgelys lumbia ? In the case of it was v. decided Hepburn Ellzey, by Marshall, J.,C. that a citizen of through speaking the District of Columbia was a citizen of a State within and could Act, not sue in a Judiciary meaning same court. The was asserted in Federal refer principle to a citizen ence of in the case New of Orleans territory, and it was Winter,† there held to defeat the jurisdiction, the citizen although Territory Mississippi who, with a if could have person alone, main joined suing tained suit. These have never been rulings disturbed, has been asserted acted ever since principle * Cranch, Wheaton, Ct. y. Baltimore

Opinion of the court. when the counsel courts, Indeed, has arisen.* point for seem to have conceded that the Ridgelys complainant the District could their not become voluntary' the court submission, that their being parties deprived suit because were dismissed from the they the merits. after had and answered to appeared the District to S. C. If the conveyance by Bidgelys transferred interest of really Maryland Ridgely avowed former made latter, pur although court to entertain pose enabling McDonald it would have case, accomplished purpose. since, have well established this and several cases Smalley,† fact that did not transfer rule. But in point the real It was made without con interest the grantors. *8 that the sideration, with a distinct grantors understanding all to have their and tbatthedeed was no retained real interest, to And it is other than to the court. effect jurisdiction give now court will under such not, well that the settled, equally to is a fraud the court, effect what circumstances, give case v. is In the of Smith Kernochen,‡ more. nothing and true said, court “The and objection only ground as the case all cases that the is, these grantor, assignor and the on the be, is the real may plaintiff his name used colorable, but nominal and record is then, suit jurisdiction. merely purpose defendants, former and the between the fact, cites Mc And conveyance.” notwithstanding mentioned; Lesseev. Smalley, Donald v. already Maxfield’s Lessee v. McNeil,|| Hurst’s Briggs Levy,§ French.¶ us can be see how the case before It is not possible laid down. We are there- here out of taken principle Court no that the Circuit fore opinion the case. face, on its which, the decree that court

It follows that Peters, Court, 45. 1 620. Fairfield, Peters’s Circuit Wescott Dallas, 330. Howard, § 216. ‡ 7 Sumner, Court, ¶ 1 Washington || Dee. Clifford,

Opinion J.,-dissenting. be merits, to be dismissal of the billon the must appears .a to that reversed, remanded, and the case with directions want of court to enter decree the bill for juris- dismissing diction, and without prejudice plaintiff’s right bring suit she advised in the court. proper to concur in CLIFFORD,

Mr. Justice Unable dissenting. I will to state very briefly opinion proceed the reasons of dissent. my in a case where

Consent, I agree, give and the laws of Con conferred the Constitution Constitu as described in the the judicial power gress, citi between extends in terms to controversies tion, express of different zens States.* also Act it is the eleventh section of pro Judiciary

By shall have exclusive the Circuit Courts cogni vided States, of of the several zance, concurrent with courts where of a civil nature common law or all suits at equity sum or exceeds, costs, matter exclusive dispute citi of five hundred and the suit dollars, value a citizen of where the suit is zen State brought State.† another

. is a Delaware, respond- citizen Complainant within the case ents are citizens Maryland, brings Constitu- and of the words of the Act Judiciary express tion. *9 et al.,‡ v. Walker decision of this court Hagan

Express 1839, of February, act of the is that since the twenty-eighth in a suit in the court defeat the not jurisdiction it does is not an inhabi a named as defendant that person equity, the suit is where or found the district of, within, tant § brought. who court still between parties may adjudicate

The the absent it, parties before the rule is that are properly Cases be concluded or affected the decree. are not which the court arise, adjudi- say may 3, Large, sec. 2. 1 at 78. Art. Stat. Howard, Large, at Stat. § 14 ‡ VI. vot Ct,

Opinion Clifford, J., dissenting. cate who are before for the parties it, regularly reason that it cannot bind those who are absent, as where relief cannot be an account between given taking an one before absent the court. Defect of party parties a in such case does not defeat the jurisdiction, strictly speak- will make no decree in court of the favor com-

ing, yet plainant. an absent such case, not

Non-joinder only of the court, does defeat but it jurisdiction does not raise such under the Constitution and the question law because the the court citi- parties Congress, different States the zens of is jurisdiction court unde- will niable. Relief not be in such a it case where granted that the interests of absent will be appeal’s injuri- affected; but the is not one whether a Fed- ously question court has to hear and eral determine the cause. is question On contrary, equity practice to all common courts exercising equity powers. parties, is never allowed Such if the objection prevail the interest of the absent can or where it protect party, ap- that due in the record notice was to him, and pears given he has waived the that formally objection. maxim non in such a applies case, volenti injuria consequently, fit be remedied the difficulty may stipula- in the record. tion Courts of refuse to appearing equity cases, relief such not because have they grant juris- because diction, absent only inter- right in the subject-matter ested affected. injuriously that, the rule is if the court can Hence relief without grant or can such those in the de- rights, protect affecting rights will not cree, the court dismiss and the same rule if it record that the appears absent applicable par- full have ties and knowledge form of law in due waived all have objections pros- of the suit. Unless these views correct, ecution then it the act clear that twenty-eighth 1839, February, and void, is unconstitutional as no one will pretend can extend the of the Federal courts Congress *10 Dec. United States Addison.

Syllabus. the conferred in the beyond power Constitution. Validity of that act of is admitted in the of the Congress opinion the of court,.and it also majority admitted that the de cision of Inbush this court the case Farwell* of correct. Direct was, decision that case that the jurisdiction Federal in a courts common suit is law not defeated by that other are liable with the de suggestion jointly that fendants, such other provided appears out of the court. jurisdiction Under the Constitution and the Act the condi- Judiciary tions of are the same a as suit in at equity common and it is the one law, not possible distinguish from the to those other adding language provisions which neither framers of the Constitution nor Congress ever employed. am the

For these reasons I opinion Court had but the case, majority a court are of different unneces- renders it opinion, to enter the consideration of the merits. sary FIELD, CHIEF JUSTICE and also dissented. J., for States use Crawford v. Addison. United mayor, already duly in office under pre- ns a charter which C. mayor years, in office should “continue in office scribed that two elected,” is duly by was returned judges until a successor election counting of Upon votes cast again elected. different candidates, had a city (who power councils to elect where the can- A., ene equal number of declared that rival votes) didates had ; elected and A. office. In candidate, accordingly was installed into warranto, by on the rela- by quo taken the United States proceeding Held, rendered A. that C. C., judgment ouster was tion office, entitled either virtue of the declara- became thereupon elected, him who had returned virtue judges tion of the the charter which enacted that hold over mayor shall provision . elected. his successor was until

* Black,