Campbell v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 22 May 1888 |
| Citation | 35 F. 14 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. CITY OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
James B. Lockwood, (Marcus P. Norton, of counsel,) for complainant.
Henry D. Hadlock, for Philbrook.
George Bliss and Sherman M. Rogers, for Green and Murphy.
The theory upon which this supplemental bill proceeds is that Campbell, the complainant in the original bill, since bringing the suit, has parted with his whole interest in the subject-matter, and that those for whom Campbell was trustee have transferred their whole interest in the subject-matter to Philbrook, or the Philbrook and Knibbs, and that the title to any sum of money which may be recovered in the suit has by these transfers become vested in Philbrook, or in Philbrook and Knibbs. Upon such a state of facts the remedy of Philbrook is by an original bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, and not by a supplemental bill. This was distinctly stated in the opinion announced upon the hearing of the motion in which Philbrook applied for leave to be made co-complainant. Although the distinction between supplemental bills and original bills seems to rest upon purely artificial reasons, it is well recognized, and is attended in practice with consequences which affect the substantial rights of parties. If the cestuis que trust had not transferred all their interest in the subject-matter, and there had been simply a change of trustees by operation at law, or if there had been only a partial alienation of the title of Campbell, a supplemental bill might lie. As it is, the demurrer must be sustained. Mitf. Eq. Pl. 65, 98; 1 Barb.Ch.Pr. 66, 84; Story, Eq. Pl. 349; Tappan v. Smith, 5 Bis. 73. The third ground of objection assigned in the demurrer sufficiently raises the point.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastman v. City of New York
...under the title of Campbell v. The Mayor, etc. (C.C.) 9 Fed. 500. The opinion sustaining the demurrer to supplemental bill is reported in 35 F. 14. The opinion dismissing the bill on rehearing because public use for more than two years prior to the application is at 35 F. 504, 1 L.R.A. 48. ......
-
Pittsburgh, S. & N.R. Co. v. Fiske
...file a supplemental bill, or a bill in the nature of a supplemental bill. And see Tappan v. Smith, Fed. Cas. No. 13,748; Campbell v. City of New York (C.C.) 35 F. 14; Brown v. Fletcher (C.C.) 140 F. 639; v. Brant, 17 How. 43, 15 L.Ed. 34. An assignment by a sole defendant of his interest in......
-
Arwshan v. Meshaka
...bill in the nature of a supplemental bill, substituted himself as plaintiff. Fulton v. Greacen, 44 N. J. Eq. 443, 15 A. 827;Campbell v. New York (C. C.) 35 F. 14;Pittsburg, S. & N. Railroad v. Fiske (C. C. A.) 178 F. 66;Carson v. American Smelting & Refining Co. (C. C. A.) 11 F. (2d) 764;Do......
-
Brown v. Fletcher
... ... upon July 8, 1904 ... Russel ... & Campbell and Ashley Pond (Henry M. Campbell, of counsel), ... for the motion ... John ... complainants were required before answer filed to elect ... between a suit in equity in New York and that suit.' ... In the ... case at bar the complainant has made his election ... dismissal of the suit. Barribeau v. Brant, 17 How ... 43, 15 L.Ed. 34; Campbell v. City of New York (C.C.) ... 35 F. 14 ... The ... case at bar is like that of Bryar v ... ...