Miller v. Baltimore County Marble Co.

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This hill was filed by the appellant, claiming to.he a creditor and a shareholder in the Baltimore County Marble Company, a corporation created under the general law of this State. It alleges that the Company is insolvent and ⁶⁴⁴ prays that its liabilities may be ascertained, and the shareholders ratahly assessed towards the payment of said indebtedness. The bill further alleges, that Frederick Fickey, Jr., being the President of said corporation, and the holder of unpaid shares of its capital stock, fraudulently obtained a judgment against the Company for $5445.15—and that afterwards he brought suit against one Charles Weber, a shareholder, and as such individually liable for the debts of the corporation, and recovered judgment against him for $3804.89.

In addition to the prayer for general relief, the complainant prays that Fickey, and Lanahan, his assignee, may be restrained from enforcing the payment of said judgment. To the bill a general demurrer was filed, and this appeal was taken from the order of the Court, sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill. In support of the demurrer, it is urged in the first place, that the bill is multifarious. It will be found upon an examination of the many cases in which this subject has been considered, that the objection to bills in equity on the ground of multifariousness, is confined to three classes : 1st.

Where the bill embraces different persons as plaintiffs or defendants, who have no privity with each other, as in Exeter College vs. Rowlan, 6 Mad., 294, and Attorney-General vs. Merchant Tailors’ Company, 1 M. & K., 189. 2nd. Where the same party sues or is sued in different capacities, as in Ward vs. Duke of Northumberland, 2 Anst., 469, and 3rd. Where the defendant is sued in regard to several distinct matters, which have no connection with each other, as in Attorney-General vs. Goldsmith Company, 5 Sim., 615. Now it is very clear, the bill before us does not come within either of these classes.

It is simply a bill by a ⁶⁴⁵ creditor and shareholder, alleging the insolvency of the corporation, and praying that the shareholders may be assessed ratably for the payment of the debts of the company. It is true, that in addition to the prayer for general relief, the complainant seeks to restrain the execution of a judgment, which he alleges was fraudulently recovered against the corporation. But all the parties have a common interest in the subject-matters embraced in the bill—a common interest in ascertaining the liabilities of the company, including the Eickey judgment, and the amount which each shareholder is liable for contribution on account of said indebtedness. In no sense then can the bill be said to be multifarious.

In the next place, it is urged, that the bill is fatally defective, because the complainant has failed