Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/783

 BH^LDON V. KEOKUK NOBTHEBN LINB PACKEX 00. 769 ���Sheldon and another v. The Eeoktjk Noethebu Linb Paokb* Co. �and others. �[CHrcuit Cowrtj W. D. Wisconsin. 1881.) �1. EquiTT Pleadikg — MuLTiFAMousirass — Mibjoindeii— Demttereb. �Whether or not a bill is demurrable on the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of causes of actioa will depend on the special circumatancea, and what the due administration of justice demands, in eacb case. �2. Same— Statuth of Limitations — Laches. �A bill set eut the faots that the complainants were judgment creditore, with ret'urns of no property f ound, of an insolvent corporation ; that the property of their common debtor was withdrawn from their reach by reason of transfera thcreof to the defendants, in pursuance of a scheme to which they and the debtorg were parties, though in different degrees, and, in some respects, by dif- ferent acts ; and that such scheme was carried out by the parties thereto with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the complainants and other creditors. Hdd, that the bill was not demurrable on the ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of causes of action. Edd, that, under the Wisconsin statutes, an action of this nature must be brought within six years after the fraud is dis- covered. �Held, that the defence of the statute of limitations can be taken advantage of on demiirrer. �Hell^ that it will not be inferred, in support of a demurrer setting up the statute of limitations, from the fact that the alleged fraud occurred more thap six years prior to the commencement of the suit, that the facts constituting the frauds were discovered before that period of six years also. �Held, aXso, that a demurrer, insisting on lapse of time short of the statutory period, will not be sustained, as the bill does not, upon its face and without resorti ng to inferences, make out a clear case of unreasonable delay on the part of the complainants after the discovery of the fraud. �Query, whether the doctrine of laches or lapse of time can ever be inToked. in a suit to which a statute of limitation applies. �In Equity. �S. U. Pinncy and F. J. Lamb, for complainants. �Shan, Stevens e Morris and J. H, Davidson, for defendants. �Harlan, Justice. The defendants demur upon these grounds : �FirsU that the bill is multifarious, in that it seeks to enforce independant judgiiieuts in which the complainants have no joint interest, and also because it unites with the cause of action against the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company, in which the defendant Davidson has no interest, a, cause of action against Davidson in which his co-defendant has no interest; second, that if complainants ever had any cause of action against the defendants, or either of them, the delay which occurred without suit was so unreasonable as to deprive them of any right to relief in equity; third, that the suit is barred by the statute of limitations of Wisconsin. ' �The objection of multifariousness will be first considered. Pass- v.8,no.ll-49 ��� �