Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1860
..... . craig, 603, said to lay down any rule applicable universally or to say what constitutes multifariousness as an abstract proposition is, upon the authorities, utterly impossible. page 65 u. s. 164 every case must be governed by its circumstances, and as these are as diversified as ..... the name of the city or its appointee. the complainant is the appointee for this purpose, and his right is too clear to admit of controversy. this bill is not multifarious; the assessments were assessed on the lots by the foot front, and all against the same defendant. lord cottenham, in campbell v. mackay, 7 simon 564 and in mylne v ..... power of the state, but from the laws of the united states. it was not necessary to make the contractor who had sold out a party, nor was the bill multifarious because it claimed to enforce the liens upon several lots. it was a bill filed on the equity side of the court by creighton, a citizen of iowa, against fitch .....Tag this Judgment!