_ GREENWALT v. DUNGAN. 35
equity adapts its decrees tothe necessities of each case." Page
432. See, also, Van Bolckelen vv. Cook, 5 Sawy. 593-4. _
Thepresent case is a stronger one for permittingthe co-tenant to
sue alone, as there is no account in which others are interested re-
quired. But this point is fully settled by the supreme court of the »
United States in Mississippi cf Missouri It. Co. v. Ward, 2. Black, 485.
The suit was brought by Ward, a tenant in common of three steam- _
boats, to enjoinfa nuisance, without making his co·owners parties
complainant or defendants. Says the supreme court in deciding `
the case: V V,
,·‘ Ward was the part owner of these steam—boats, and commander or one
of them, navigating the river in successive trips between St. Louis and St.
Paul, and which boats, the complainant alleges, were much injured and de-
layed by the bridge, which, he avers, is a great obstruction to navigation- - .
amounting to a prominent nuisance. It is insisted that Ward cannot sue
alone, and could only come be/'ore the court jointly with the other partowners
of the vessels injured and delayed. He seeks no damages by his bill, but only _
an abatement of the nuisance, as a preventive remedy against future/injury
' and delay. A bill in equity to abate a public nuisance tiled by one who has
sustained damage has succeeded to the former mode in England of an in-
formation in chancery, prosecuted in behalf of the crown, to abate or en-
join the nuisance as a preventive remedy. The private party sues rather as
a public prosecutor, though on his own account; and unless he shows that he
has sustained, and is still sustaining, individual damage he cannot be heard.
He seeks redress of a continuing trespass and wrong against himself, and »
acts in behalf of all others who are or may be injured; nor is there more ne-
cessity for joining partners in the prosecution than there is for his joining in
the suit any other person as complainant who has sustained injury. Gib-
bons, Dilapidation, 402."
This decision exactly covers the point under consideration, and is
authoritative. None of the points of the demurrer relied oniare ten-
able. The demurrer to the bill must, therefore, be overruled, and
it is so ordered, with leave to answer on or before the next rule-clay
of this court. l
Gnnnuwsrrr v. Duncan and others." ._ A
(Circuit Court, E. D, llhssouri. March 22, 1883.) i
1. Eo,m·rv—Jumsnrc1-ron nv Snrrs ro Renova Cmuns umm Trrmes. » ,
A suit to remove a cloud upon a title cannot be maintained in a court of
equity, where the plaintiff has a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law.
*Reported by B. F. Rex, Esq., ofthe SL. Louis ber. ~