DOYLE ".SAN DIEGO LAND & TOWN CO.
849
Rny other case, could constitute a cause of action.
In every case that must necessarily consist of at least two things: the right of the complainfngparty, and the wrong committed against .that right by the other party. In this case the cause of action arose upon the entry of the defendants upon the premises April 17, 1874, which was an invasion of the right flowing from the title to the property, and the suit, not having been commenced within 10 years from that time, is barred by the provisions of the section in question. Wliber v. OommWsioners, 18 Wall. 70, 71; People v. Center, 66 Cal. 564, 5 Pac. Rep. 263, and 6 Pac. Rep. 481; Peoplf, v. Arnold, 4 N. Y. 508. There must be judgment for defendantsdismissing the bill, with costs.
DOYLE 'IJ. SAN DIEGO LAND (Circuit Oourt, S. D. Oalifornia. :'QUITy-PARTIEB. '
&
TOWN
Co.
August 8, 18110.)
In an action against a corporation and its officers, in which relief is sought against the corporation and discovery from the officers, the latter are not merely nominal parties. '
In Equity. On demurrer to bill. Deakin &Btory, for complainant. Luce, McDonald & Torrance, for defendants. R6ss; J. "'The defendants to the bill in this case are a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Kansas and four indi;' vidllaJs,' two ,of whom are alleged to be officers, and the other two stockholders, or'the corporation. The complainant and the individual defendantaare all citizens and residents of this state. If it be true, as contended by counsel for complainant, that the individual defendants are merely nominal parties, the fact that they are made defendants to the bill would not oust the court of jurisdiction. But are they nominal The bill is one for relief against the corporation, and, parties as incidental to that relief, for discovery against the. individual defendants. To such a bill I do not see how the parties from whom the discovery igsought can be said to be nominal defendants. If the whole scope of the suit was against the corporation alone the mere fact that the officers of the corporation were made parties would be unimportant, because a corporation acts and is made to act through its ofIieers, and they are therefore bound in their official capacity by any valid judgment against it. To such a suit such officers would not only not be necessary, but they would not be proper, parties; and, if made such, would not be rea], but nomin!ll,partiesonly. Hawh v. Ra.ilroad Co., 6 Blatchf. 114, f\,S said by Ju.dge BLATCHFORD in the case cited i where the officer is "made a party defendant, jointly with the corporation of
,i"lliohhe was an officer/f()r the of obtainingsomespecitic relief him' ona personal liltbility" or in order to obtain a diScovery frotu him in regard 'to matterspecllliarly within his lmo'Vledge," he is -s.. reill party to the, Ido not see how it can be otherwise. One who is made a defenditbt to a suit for the purpose discovery fr0t11 him as lricldental to the relief Bought against another defendant,is just as lllucha necessary, and therefore a real, party as though made a defendant to a bill for discovery alone. In either case it is obthat unless inadea party no discovery can be obtained from him, 'and'when sued for that 'purpose it would seem to be plain enough that he cannot be held to be a nominal party. It results, tHat the second ground of dE-murrer is well taken, and must be sustained, with leave to complainant to amend within the usual time, if he shall be so advised.
AYLESWORTH "'.
COUNTY.,
{OLreuit Court, E. D. Michigan. November 80, 1889.>
,
1.
COtT.l'l'I'Bs-.AOTION QN DBAJ.N WARR.&.NTs-J'UBISDIOTION.
An action lies in the federal court upon drain orders drawn by · county drain commissioner upon a county treasurer, though the orders themselVeS create no debt; against the county', and the sole duty of the county officers i$ to assess and collect the cost of constructing the drain from the owners of property benefited by it. In such case the judgment is special, and is enforceable only by mandamU8 to compel the collection of the tax. Such orders are so far negotiable that suit may be brought upon them by the holder, though the court woul4have no jur,isdiction of an action brought by the assignor of such holder. ' :' , ,, ' ,
II. SAME-AcTION BY
8. 4.
8.A.MlI-EVIDENOE..
Such orders are p'lima.facl:e valid, and plaintiff is not bound to prove the regularity of the proceedings for the assessment and collection of the taX.
A, decision of the supreme court of .the state denying relief to a prior holder of such orders is IIot reB adjttawata. (8yZlabWJ by the CQwrt.) .
JUDGMENT-RES ADJUJ)I<lATA.
At Law. This was an action upon certain orders originally issued to one John Scriven for work done and materials furnished in the construction of two drains in the defendant county, such drains being located in the townships of Newark, New Haven, and Arcada, and no other. These orders were issued in pursuance of Act 43, Laws 1869, as amended by Act No. 169, Laws 1871. To the special count in the declaration were also attached the common counts, together with copies of these orders, which were signed by the drain commissioner and countersigned by the chairman arid clerk of the board of supervisors. An indorsement upon such orders shows that they were presented for payment to the county treaeurerabout the time they were issued, and that on the 31st Of March, '1883, all but one of them were again presented, and a payment made thereon. '