
    *Smith et al. v. Heuston et al., Commissioners of Butler County.
    Individual holders of lots around a square conveyed to the county, for the use • of public buildings and a court-house, have not such individual interest in the ground as will authorize chancery, on their application, to enjoin county commissioners from leasing portions of the ground to individuals, reserving rent to the county.
    Such persons have no right to proceed in chancery to enforce the public right to such ground.
    In chancery, from Butler. The county of Butler was erected in 1803, and commissioners were appointed to fix the seat of justice -therein. Before the place of the seat of justice was agreed upon, the proprietor of the town pf Hamilton proposed to the commissioners, in writing, in case that town should be selected as the site, “to give, for the use of the county, a square for public buildings, agreeably to a plan of the town, etc.; also a square for the church and burying ground, consisting of eight town-lots, together with the commons in front of the town, for public uses, such as boatyards,” etc., and to “pay two hundred dollars toward erecting of public buildings or court-house.” The county seat was established at Hamilton and the two hundred dollars paid by the proprietor; but before the square for the public buildings was conveyed he died. A conveyance was afterward ordered by the court of common pleas, in execution of the contract; in pursuance of which the representatives of the proprietor made a deed to the commissioners of the county, conveying said square to them, for the use of public buildings for the inhabitants of the county of Butler.
    
    The bill, after setting forth the foregoing facts, alleges, that the-county commissioners have expended large sums of money in erecting a court-house, and other public buildings, in consequence-of which the lots near and around the square increased in value, when the complainants, relying on the good faith of the county commissioners, became interested in some of them. That the county commissioners, in order to injure the complainants, and to deprive the inhabitants of the benefit of the donation, have resolved to lease the corners of the square for a term of years, for private purposes, and advertised to receive proposals for such leases; that the leases, if made, will forfeit the whole square to the heirs of the grantor, and violate the public faith and individual right. The bill prays an injunction to stay the proposed leases.
    The defendants demur to the bill.
    *J. Woods, for the defendants, made the following points:
    1. That the defendants are sued as individuals, not as a corporation.
    2. That there are different injuries complained of in the bill,, which can not be joined.
    3. The injuries complained of are several to each of the defendants, for which each has his remedy at law.
    
      4. That no forfeiture will follow the leasing proposed.
    5. That inasmuch as the county commissioners have expended large sums in ornamenting and improving the grounds for the advantage of the complainants, the same power they had to do that authorized them to use the ground for tho benefit of the public, and to give leases, with a view to the public advantage arising from the rents.
    He cited 5 Ohio, 204, as conclusively showing the power to lease.
    A. H. Dunlevy, contra,
    cited 1 Cooper’s Eq. 40; 2 Mad. Ch. 144; Redes. Tr. 145; 3 Munf. 358; 29 Ohio L. 351.
   Wright, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Unless the complainants have a right, as individuals, to interfere to protect county property conveyed to it for the use of public buildings, and restrain the county commissioners, the agents of 'the county, from using such property as in their judgment may best promote the object of the grant and the public interest, the bill must be dismissed. The right to interfere is sought to be sustained from analogy to the class of cases where one of many commoners or parishioners seek to restrain from infringing the common right, or to establish a general modus. The analogy, in our opinion, does not hold. In those cases the right to proceed depends on the fact that each commoner or parishioner is injured in ■his individual rights. In another class of cases, where a great number are separately interested in the same subject, one or more, for convenience, and to prevent delay, may litigate the right in ■chancery, for himself and all others interested; and the court, having the subject and the parties operating before it, will so control as to protect the rights of all concerned. The case before us .does not, in our opinion, belong to either of these classes.

The present is an attempt, by two or three individuals, to enforce the rights of the county, and guard the county property 103] *from forfeiture. This court, in Putnam v. Valentine, 5 Ohio, 189, has determined, that “ rights purely public are to be enforced in the name of the state or the officer intrusted with the conduct of public suits.” If the rights of the county of Butler .are violated or threatened, redress must be sought in the name of the county or its acknowledged agents. 5 Ves. 29 ; Swans. 244; 5 Ohio, 189. The case relied upon by the complainants’ counsel, in 3 Munf. 358, was brought by Murckie, a surviving trustee of Manchester, to prevent an injury to the common right of the inhabitants of the town. There is no pretense in the bill that the complainants have any individual interest in this square, as ten•ants in common or otherwise, which they ask us to protect. They -are mere volunteers to take charge of public or county interest, without ever having been intrusted by the county with the performance of such duty. They ask to be permitted to act for the public without offering any reason for taking the business from the public agents. If the court was right, in 5 Ohio, 189, in deciding that a supervisor of highways had no authority to proceed in ■chancery to restrain from the destruction of a public highway, the right of the complainants is much less apparent. The bill must be dismissed. The leave asked to amend, would not avail the complainants if granted.

The court designedly leaves untouched the right of the, commissioners to lease the ground, as proposed.  