
    District Grand Lodge of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America v. Stephney E. Leonard et al.
    [46 South., 532.]
    1. Equity Pleading and Practice. Cross-bill. New Parties:
    
    In the absence of statutory warrant therefor new parties cannot be brought into an equity suit by a cross-bill.
    :2. Same. Code 1906, § 587. Must not bring in distinct matters.
    
    A cross-bill, not confined to the matters involved in the original suit, but introducing other distinct matters, not material in making defence to the original bill, is demurrable under Code 1906, § 587, regulating the subject.
    From tbe chancery court of Warren county.
    Hon. J. S. Hicks, Chancellor.
    Tbe District Grand Lodge of tbe Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America, appellant, was complainant in tbe court below; Leonard and others, appellees, were defendants there. From a decree overruling its demurrer to defendants’ cross-bill ■the complainant appealed to tbe supreme court.
    The appellant filed a bill in chancery, alleging that under tbe ■constitution of tbe Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America certain powers are vested in tbe District Grand Lodge, .and certain of its officers constitute an executive committee, and one of the duties of the executive committee is to fix a time and place for the convention of the District Grand Lodge, and it is the duty of the District Grand Master, who is the chief officer of the District Grand Lodge, to see to the execution of all lawful orders and regulations; that said executive committee met and determined that the (then) next annual convention should be held at Mt. Hero den Baptist church, in Vicksburg, Miss.; that appellees, individual members of the subordinate-lodges located in the city of Vicksburg, disregarding such order,, had defiantly attempted to control the meeting of the convention and have it held at Bethel church, in the city of Vicksburg, and in pursuance of their purpose had issued programs and published a notice to this effect in a newspaper, and, by giving out such information to the members of the lodges in attendance as delegates, had exceeded the authority vested in them and defied the rules of the order; their purpose being to organize an opposition meeting at Bethel church, and thus gain control of the lodge and of the funds coming into the hands of its officers. The bill charged that confusion would thereby arise in the collection of dues for death benefits and in the issuance of insurance policies. The prayer of the bill was for an injunction to restrain appellees from holding an unauthorized meeting and from soliciting delegates to the Grand Lodge to attend it. A preliminary injunction was obtained. Appellees answered, denying that any special building in the city of Vicksburg had been designated as the meeting place for the Grand Lodge, and claiming that they had the right to endeavor to induce members to-meet in Bethel church, and that, the Grand Master being absent from the state at the time, the Deputy Grand Master, the next ranking officer, had acquiesced in their plans. They attempted to make their answer a cross-bill by charging that the District Grand Master and Grand Secretary and Treasurer had abused certain official powers and defrauded the members of the organization of funds belonging to the order. To the cross-bill a. demurrer was filed by tbe District Grand Lodge on tbe ground that it set up new matter and sought to bring in new parties to tbe suit and that appellees were not entitled to tbe relief prayed. Tbe District Grand Master and Grand Secretary and Treasurer,, tbe new parties, filed demurrers to tbe cross-bill upon similar grounds. Tbe court below sustained their demurrer and dismissed tbe cross-bill as to them, but overruled the demurrer of the District Grand Lodge.
    
      Gatchings & Gatchings, J. D, Thames and W. E. Mollisonr for appellant.
    By tbe very terms of Mississippi Code 1906, § 587, a defendant may only introduce new matter in bis crossbill wbicb is-material to bis defense. He cannot introduce new matter wbicb is not germane to tbe original bill. He is limited to such new matter as would enable him to present and enforce bis side of tbe controversy, and this is tbe rule, aside from tbe regulation of tbe matter by statute.
    
      “A crossbill ex vi terminorum implies a bill brought by a defendant against tbe plaintiff in tbe same suit, or against other-defendants in the same suit, or against both, touching tbe matters in question in tbe original bill.” Daniels Chancery Practice, 1742; Gilmer v. Felhour, 45 Miss., 630; Story Eq. PL, 375 ; Gross v. LeValle, 1 Wall., 14. Tbe objects of a cross-bill are stated by Shipman, Eq. PL, 304, to be tbe following:
    “(a) To obtain a discovery of facts necessary to a proper-determination of tbe suit;
    (b) To obtain full relief for all parties;
    (c) To bring before tbe court new matter in aid of tbe defense to tbe original bill;
    (d) To obtain some affirmative relief touching tbe matters in tbe original bill.”
    The same doctrine is announced in 5 Ency. PL & Pr., 640, 641. Andrews v. Eibbee, 12 Mich., 94; Farmers’ & Merchants’' 
      
      Barde v. Bronson, 14 Mich., 361; Goff v. Kelly, 74 Fed., 330; Hogg v. Hoag, 107 Fed., 814; Gilmore v. Sort, 134 Fed., 661; Ayers v. Chicago, 101 U. S., 187.
    
      Hudson & Box, for appellees.
    We are not going to quarrel over the decisions or the text writer’s definition to the effect that a cross-bill must be responsive and germane or grow out of the matters contained in the original bill. This does not mean a denial of the allegations contained in the bill altogether, but it means matters necessarily growing out of the allegation. One of the cardinal virtues of equity jurisprudence is its right to prevent a multiplicity of ■suits and determine all controversies by one suit where it can be practically done. In this suit the chancellor has sustained a demurrer as to the Grand Master and Grand Secretary, ■Jones and McKissack, individually, and dismissed the cross-bill as to them. We commend. the chancellor in following the Mississippi adjudications on this subject, and in obeying the mandates of the supreme court, whether he thinks so to do right or wrong.
   Mates, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Under Code 1906, § 587, the demurrer to the cross-bill should have been sustained as to all the defendants thereto. The so* called cross-bill is in fact an original bill, and introduces no new matter material in defending the case made by the original bill filed in the cause.

The decree overruling the demurrer of the District Grand Lodge is reversed, demurrer sustained, cross-bill dismissed, and cause remanded.

Reversed.  