Opinion of the Court. would be compensated for by the convenience of a single plaintiff, and where the case is not covered by any controlling precedent the inconvenience might constitute good ground for denying jurisdiction. We are not disposed to deny that jurisdiction on the ground of preventing a multiplicity of suits may be exercised in many cases in behalf of a single complainant against a number of defendants, although there is no common title nor community of right or interest in the subject matter among such defendants, but where there is a community of interest among them in the questions of law and fact involved in the general controversy. Is there, upon the complainant's theory of this case, any such common interest among these defendants as to the questions of fact that may be put in issue between them and the plaintiff? Each defendant's defence may, and in all probability will, depend upon totally different facts, upon distinct and particular contracts, made at different times, and in establishing a defence, even of like character, different witnesses would probably be required for each defendant, and no defendant has any interest with another. In this case, from the complainant's own bill, the amount demanded is the full amount of the par value of the shares held by each defendant. In Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498, 505, a receiver brought suit to recover from the stockholders of an insolvent national bank the statutory liability imposed upon them, and in the course of the opinion it was stated by the court: "Where the whole amount is sought to be recovered the proceeding must be at law. Where less is required the proceeding may be in equity, and in such a case an interlocutory decree may be taken for contribution, and the case may stand over for the further action of the court, if such action should subsequently prove to be necessary, until the full amount of the liability is exhausted." In Bailey v. Tillinghast, 40 C. C. A. 93; 99 Fed. Rep. 801, this statement of the law was recognized, and the cases of Casey v. Galli, 94 U. S. 673, and United States v. Knox, 102 U. S. 422, were referred to as recognizing the same rule. In United States v. Knox, the court approved and reaffirmed the rules laid H Opinion of the Court. down in Kennedy v. Gibson, and one of those rules was that when the whole amount was sought to be recovered, the proceeding must be at law. The facts surrounding the present case and the reasons for holding that they do not bring it within the principle of preventing a multiplicity of suits are so well stated in the opinion of McPherson, District Judge, in this case, 102 Fed. Rep. 790, that we quote the same. After speaking of the alleged conclusiveness of the Minnesota decree upon the question therein decided, the judge continued: "Thereafter a different question arose for determination, namely, can the assessment be lawfully enforced against the individuals charged therewith? And in this question the interest of each stockholder is separate and distinct. The bill asserts the conclusiveness of the Minnesota decree upon the defendants, so far as the necessity for the assessment and the amount charged against each stockholder are concerned., Bank v. Farnum, 176 U. S. 640. Assuming that position to be sound (and, if I do not so assume it; if these questions are still open for determination, so far as the Pennsylvania stockholders are to be affected-the bill must fail for want of necessary parties,) it is clear that only two classes of questions remain to be decided: The first is whether a given stockholder was ever liable as such; and the second is whether, if he were originally liable, his liability has ceased, either in whole or in part. Manifestly, as it seems to me, the defendants have no common interest in these questions, or in the relief sought by the receiver against each defendant. The receiver's cause of action against each defendant is, no doubt, similar to his cause of action against every other, but this is only part of the matter. The real issue, the actual dispute, can only be known after each defendant has set up his defence, and defences may vary so widely that no two controversies may be exactly or even nearly alike. If, as is sure to happen, differing defences are put in by different defendants, the bill evidently becomes a single proceeding only in name. In reality it is a congeries of suits with little relation to each other, except that there is a common plaintiff, who has similar clainis against many persons. But as each of these per Opinion of the Court. sons became liable, if at all, by reason of a contract entered into by himself alone, with the making of which his co-defendants had nothing whatever to do, so he continues to be liable, if at all, because he himself, and not they, has done nothing to discharge the liability. Suppose A to aver that his signature to the subscription list was a forgery; what connection has that averment with B's contention, that his subscription was made by an agent who had exceeded his powers? or with C's defence, that his subscription was obtained by fraudulent representations? or with D's defence, that he has discharged his full liability by a voluntary payment to the receiver himself? or with E's defence, that he has paid to a creditor of the corporation a larger sum than is now demanded? These are separate and individual defences, having nothing in common; and upon each, the defendant setting it up is entitled to a trial by jury, although it may be somewhat troublesome and expensive to award him his constitutional right. But, even if the ground of diminished trouble and expense may sometimes be sufficient, I should still be much inclined to hesitate before I conceded the superiority of the equitable remedy in the present case. Such a bill as is now before the court is certain to be the beginning of a long and expensive litigation. The hearings are sure to be protracted. Several, perhaps many, counsel will no doubt be concerned, whose convenience must be consulted. The testimony will soon grow to be voluminous. The expense of printing will be large. The costs of witnesses will not in any degree be diminished, and, if some docket costs may be escaped, this is probably the only pecuniary advantage to be enjoyed by this one cumbersome bill over separate actions at law." We are in accord with the views thus expressed, and we thereforę must deny the jurisdiction of equity, so far as it is based upon the asserted prevention of a multiplicity of suits. 2. There remains the further question of maintaining the suit on the ground that it is ancillary or auxiliary to the decree of the Minnesota court and aids in its enforcement. We think this contention cannot be sustained. In the first place, all the non-resident stockholders were but nominal parties in the Minnesota suit. Their names were merely placed in its title. No service of process was ever made Opinion of the Court. on one of them, and as the suit was not one in which service by publication of process could be ordered, there was nothing in the nature of the suit to give them notice or to enable the court to give judgment against them without their appearing. The court did not assume to give any such judgment. Indeed, the complainant averred there were no means of obtaining jurisdiction over the non-resident stockholders, and the court assumed that it had no jurisdiction over them, and on account of such lack of jurisdiction it only gave judgment against those resident stockholders who were parties to the suit. The complainant claims that the non-resident stockholders are bound because the corporation was a party, not because they were parties to the suit. There is no decree or judgment, therefore, against the stockholders who were non-residents. The claim that they are bound by certain findings of fact by the court, because of the corporation being a party and in law representing them to that extent, assuming it for this purpose to be well founded, is far from transforming a decree against resident stockholders into one against non-residents who were not parties to the action. Even assuming that the decree concludes them upon certain facts found in that action where there was no decree against them, still, another action in another jurisdiction to enforce their liability as originally created by statute cannot within any reason be said to be one to enforce the former judgment. Indeed it is because of the very fact that no judgment was or could be obtained against the non-resident stockholders in the Minnesota suit that the Pennsylvania Federal court is asked to exercise its jurisdiction and give judgment against the defendants on their statutory liability. This does not make the Pennsylvania suit ancillary to the Minnesota decree for the purpose of enforcing it, for there is no decree against them to be enforced. There is only a claim that they are bound by certain facts found in another action to which they were not parties in any but a merely formal and nominal sense. We think that, upon grounds discussed herein, the judgments of the courts below were right, and they are, therefore, Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BREWER dissented. VOL. CLXXXVIII-6 Statement of the Case. DIAMOND MATCH COMPANY v. ONTONAGON. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE No. 96. Argued December 1, 1902.-Decided January 19, 1903. 1. The village of Ontonagon, Michigan, has power, either under its charter 3. There may be an interior movement of property within the State which THIS is a bill in equity to restrain the collection of certain taxes levied under the following law of the State of Michigan: "Personal property of non-residents of the State, and all forest products owned by residents or non-residents, or estates of deceased persons, shall be assessed in the township or ward where the same may be, to the person having control of the premises, store, mill, dock, yard, piling ground, place of storage, or warehouse where such property is situated in such township, on the second Monday of April of the year when the assessment is made, except that where such property is in transit to some place within |