Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/393

 STAFFOED NAT. BANK V. SPBAGUB. 379 �it was impracticable to deal with at the same time by reason of their independent character, or which could not be so dealt with without burdening the parties with expense and inconvenience. In fact, be- cause the circumstances of each case dififer, there is no arbitrary and inflexible rule as to what constitutea fatal multifariousness, and courts of equity are wont to permit joinder of questions which are to a certain extent distinct, when it can be done without incon- venience. Story's Eq. PI. § 539; Gaines T. Chew, 2 How. 619; Hoggart v, Cutts, 1 Craig. & Phill. 204. �"And in new cases it is to be presumed that the court will be govemed by those analogies which seem best founded in general convenience, and will best promote the due administration of justice, without multiplying unnecessary litigation on one hand, or drawing suitors into needless and oppressive ex- panses on the other." �An examination of the allegations of this bill will, I think, satisfy the mind that the joinder of these two matters would prevent need- less multiplicity of suits, and would not be inconvenient to any of the defendants. �In 1873 the Messrs. Sprague became insolvent, and executed a deed of trust of their lands in Connecticut to Mr. Chaffee, upon certain trusts. The plaintiff says that this deed and the subsequent assign- ments are fraudulent and void as to those creditors who did not assent to their provisions; that it, being a non-assenting crediter, attacbed these lands or a part of thom, obtained judgment, and filed its certificate of lien. The object of the plaintiff is to perfect its title to the lands by a deoree of foreclosure, and by a removal of a cloud upon the title which was created by a void deed of the judgment debtor. In some cases the cloud bas been so placed, perhaps, by third persons, or has so arisen, as in Banks v. Walker, 2 Sand. Ch. 344, as to make the examination of both questions in one suit impracticable, or very inconvenient to the parties and to the court. In this case there is no difficulty in investigating the two questions at the same time. The cloud was placed by the Messrs. Sprague; both they and Chaffee have either a title or an interest in the lands, and both are in possession. AU the defendants are desirons to defend the validity of the trust deed, and to protect the property from the attaek of non-assenting creditors. It is a question in which they are all iuterested. �Again, the practical and substantial. question in this case is in regard to the validity of the trust deeds. Apart from that question the foreclosure would be a mere formai proceeding. The bill for ��� �