Mathieson v. Craven

Citations

• 164 F. 471
• 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 5314

Syllabus

<p>1. Equity (§ 93*) — Paeties.</p> <p>A distinction lias been recognized between necessary and indispensable parties l'or the purpose of ascertaining whether some of those who under well-established rules of equity pleading and practice were deemed necessary, may not, under existing rules governing pleading and practice in equity, be dispensed with as parties in order that equitable relief in a given case may not wholly fail.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. §§ 252-259; Dec. Dig. § 93.*]</p> <p>2. Equity (§ 93*) — Indispensable Paeties.</p> <p>Persons whose presence in a suit as parties is essential to the granting of the relief sought, and whose absence would render impossible or nugatory any decree for such relief, are indispensable in contradistinction to necessary parties.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Cent. Dig. §§ 252-259; Dec. Dig. § 93.*]</p> <p>3. Equity (§ 219*) — Failure to Serve Defendant — Demtirreb.</p> <p>A demurrer to a bill cannot be sustained on the ground that one against whom process is prayed as a co-defendant and whose presence is essential to the relief prayed, has not been served and has not appeared; for non constat that lie will not be so served or voluntarily appear.</p> <p>[Éd. Note. — For other cases, see Equity, Dec. Dig. § 219.*]</p> <p>4. Courts (§ 316*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction — Diversity of Citizenship.</p> <p>Where two persons, entitled to separable although precisely similar claims charged on real estate, joined in a bill for the enforcement of their liens, and the bill was amended by omitting one of such persons in order that it might not fail for want of the requisite diversity of citizenship, and the suit was prosecuted by the other for the enforcement of her own claim, the amended bill stating that the person omitted “consents to the relief sought in this bill and to all proceedings had and to all orders or decrees made or that may be made by the court in this case,” held,