Mayor of Baltimore v. Ketchum

MAGRUnER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The bill was filed by the appellee, to require the Mayor and City Council to issue new certificates of city stock, in lieu of those belonging to the minor, Ketchum, which had been wrongfully cancelled upon forged assignments thereof, without the knowledge or privity of the minor or Ms guardian. The answer admitted the issue of the original certificates and their return with the endorsements and their cancellation, and the issue of new certificates to certain persons and corporations named, who it is insisted are necessary parties; hut denied all knowledge of the forgery, or that the stock was a part of the ward’s estate, or belonged to an infant or person under disability, or was part of any trust fund; but makes no denial that such were the facts. Proof was taken, making out the complainant’s case, and the counsel for the city have not, in this Court, really questioned the infant’s right to relief as against the city, only objecting to the time and manner of passing the decree, leaving the rights of the other parties as against the city, unadjudicated and held for further proceedings and decree. ³⁰ Indeed, the right to the relief sought, could not well have "been insisted, being too well settled by the decisions of the Courts here and elsewhere.

Brown, Lancaster & Co. vs. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 42 Md., 384 ; Hambleton vs. Central Ohio R. R. Co., 44 Md., 551 ; Telegraph Co. vs. Davenport, 97 U. S., 369 . The only question is, was the decree passed prematurely. The other defendants were made parties at the express suggestion of the city, and it cannot be heard to object that they were so made.

They were not however, necessary parties to this cause. The relief sought by the