Lusk v. Thatcher

Citations

• 102 Ill. 60
• 1882 Ill. LEXIS 7

Syllabus

<p>1. Parties in chancert—dismissing bill for want of necessary parties. Where the matters disclosed in a bill in chancery not only fail to show proper grounds for equitable relief as against any of the persons who are made parties defendant, but show that under any kind of a bill that might be framed, in respect to the same subject matter, there could be no relief as against those persons, the bill may properly be dismissed for the want of necessary parties. It is not incumbent on the court in such case to retain the bill for the proper parties to be brought in. This case distinguished from Thomas, Trustee v. Adams et al. 30 111. 37.</p> <p>2. If the complainant, on discovering he had sued the wrong parties, had made a special application to have the proper parties substituted as defendants for those improperly sued, and that application had been denied, quite a different question would be presented. But that was not this case. Parties are never thus substituted, except upon special application.</p> <p>3. Same—public must be made a party to a bill to contest an election for organizing a village. On bill to contest an election for organizing certain territory into a village, it is not sufficient to make certain private individuals residing in the territory, alleged to have been the principal promoters of the scheme, parties defendant, as they can not represent the public. If - it is impossible to make the village a party for the want of the election of officers, a proper representative of the public should be made a party, otherwise no decree would bind the comoration.</p>