Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/784

 770 ibdebaij bkpoeteb. �ing by many details of the transactions set ont in fhe bill, it is suffi- cient now to say thai; ths suit proceeds upon these general grounds: That the complainants are judgment creditors (with retums o£ no property found) of the !N'orth\Yestern Union Packet Compauy, an insolvent corpora- tion, organized for the purpose of ohgaging in the business of transporting persons and property ; that the property of the common debtor was all with- dirawn from their reach througb transfer thereof made to the defendants, the Keokuk Northern Line Paoket Company and Peyton S. Davidson, in pursu- ance of a plan or seheme to which they and the debtor were parties, though in different degrees, and, in some respects, by different acts ; and that such pian or scheme was devised or earried eut, by the parties thereto, with the intent to hinder, dela.y, arid deifraud the coHiplainants and other creditors of the ITorthern Union PacfeetCo'mpaiiy. �The relief sought isa decree adjudging such transfer to have been frandulent and void as to the complainants, and other then existing creditors of the No'riHerri Union Packet Company, and subjecting, so far. as it may be neeessary. to the demands of complainants and other cieditofB who may com© into this suit, such of the. property, so transferred, as may still be in the possession of defendants ; and also requiring the Keokuk Northern Line Packet Company to ac- count for the earnings received from that portion transferred, or which has been lost, destroyed, or used up sinoe the transfers were made. �It bas been held, by the snpreme court of the United States, to be impracticable to lay down any fixed, unbending rule as to what con- stitutes multifariousness prmigjoinder of causes of action. Oliver v. Piat*, i3 Howi 411 ; Gaines v. Cheui, 2 How, 619; Barney v. Latham, October term, 1880-1.* The court must necessarily exercise a large, though, of course, a sound discretion in allowing the union in the same suit of matterg which do not alike or equally affect all the par- ties. Bach case! mupt depend upon its special «ircumstances, and the neeessities which, may arise out of the due administration of jus- tice in that case. As a general rule, the court will not compel par- ties to incur the expense, vexation, and delay of several suits, where the transactions constituting the subject of the litigation, or out of which the litigation arises, are so connected by their circumstances as-to render it proper and con veulent that they should be examined in the same suit, and fuir^elief given by one comprehensive decree. A different rule would often prove to be both oppressive and mis- chievous, and could resuit in no possible benefit to any litigant, whose object was not simply to harass bis adversary, but to ascer- �*11 Rep. 72. ��� �