A State is not an indispensable party to a bill seeking to restrain its officers from levying for its benefit an illegal tax,77 nor, it has been held, to a bill to prevent their illegal issue of land warrants for property which it had agreed to convey to the plaintiff; 78 nor to a bill to restrain their unlawful issue of bonds which would diminish the value of bonds held by the complainant.79 To such bills the persons to whom the unlawful issue of bonds or land warrants is about to be made, are not indispensable parties.80 It has been said, that, in proceedings to establish claims against decedents estates, the Federal courts should follow the local law, and that no persons are indispensable parties who would not be such were the proceedings instituted in a State court.81 § 120. Parties indispensable to a decree. No suit, however, can proceed unless the court have before it as parties all persons who will be directly affected by the decree sought, or whose obedience is necessary to its enforcement, when it does not appear that they consent thereto. A person is affected by a decree when his rights against, or liability to, any of the parties to the suit is thereby determined. If a decree in favor of the complainant would cast a cloud upon another's title, that person, it seems, is thereby directly affected. To a bill by a legatee against the husband of a residuary legatee or devisee to obtain payment of the complainant's legacy from assets in the defendant's possession, the residuary legatee herself, or, if she be dead, 77 Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. ed. 204; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 15 L. ed. 401. 78 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L. ed. 447; Hancock v. Walsh, 3 Woods, 351. But see Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 453, 27 L. ed. 992, 994. 79 Board of Liquidation v. MeComb, 92 U. S. 531, 23 L. ed. 623; supra, § 105b. 80 Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 233, 21 L. ed. 447, 457; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 47 L. ed. 183. 81 Farmers' Bank of Cuba City, Wis. v. Wright, 158 Fed. 841. § 120. 1 See infra, § 122. But see Eagle Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 41 Fed. 351. 2 Young v. Cushing, 4 Biss. 456; California v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 157 U. S. 229, 395 L. ed. 683. But see Hicklin v. Marco, 56 Fed. 549. It was held improper to compel defendant to make a deed confirming complainant's title to land conveyed by the latter's grantors when such grantors were not parties. Zenbrugg v. Reed (N. J. Ch., 1896), 35 Atl. 298. her personal representative, is a necessary party, at least when it does not appear that she or her personal representative is without the jurisdiction of the court. All tenants in common of land are necessary parties to an action for trespass upon the same.4 It has been held that the several lessors of lands are indispensable parties to a suit between their respective lessees, when the validity of their title is in question.5 The United States are necessary parties to a suit brought by a State against the Secretary of the Interior to establish the title to, and to prevent the other disposition of, lands which the National Government claims to own." 8 A State is an indispensable party to a bill against its officers to compel specific performance by them for it of its contract for the sale of land; 7 or to establish a claim to property held by its officers claiming a title in the State thereto; or a claim to corporate stock registered in its name, the certificates of which are held by its officers; or to compel the removal of a nuisance from State land; 10 but not, it has been held, to a bill by the United States against a private individual to cancel a contract between him and the State for the purchase of land obtained by the State from. the plaintiff through mistake or fraud.11 All attaching creditors are indispensable parties to a suit to obtain the possession of assets, which have been seized by the sheriff under attachments issued at their application.12 The trustee of an active trust is a necessary party to a suit affecting the trust estate,13 but the legal representative of a 3 Levis v. Dart, 6 How. 1; Hill v. Wilson, C. C. A., 210 Fed. 200. 4 Cochran v. Brannan, 196 Fed. 219. 5 South Penn Oil Co. v. Miller, C. C. A., 175 Fed. 729, 736. 6 State of Louisiana v. Garfield, 211 U. S. 70, 53 L. ed. 92. 7 Preston v. Walsh, 10 Fed. 315. See also Walsh v. Preston, 109 U. S. 297, 27 L. ed. 940. 8 See §§ 103, 104, 105b, supra. 9 Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 27 L. ed. 992; supra, $37. Christian v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 133 U. S. 233, 33 L. ed. 589; supra, §§ 104, 105b. 10 Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College of South Carolina, 221 U. S. 636, 55 L. ed. 890. 11 Williams v. U. S., 138 U. S. 514, 516, 34 L. ed. 1026. 12 De Galard v. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. of Baltimore, 196 Fed. 981. 13 McRea v. Branch Bank of Ala. bama, 19 How. 376, 15 L. ed. 688; O'Hara v. MacConnell, 93 U. S. 150, 23 L. ed. 840; Thayer v. Life Ass'n, 112 U. S. 717, 28 L. ed. 864; Ameri trustee is not an indispensable party to a suit by a cestui que trust to enforce a contract concerning the trust property made by the former with the consent of the latter.14 Every party to a contract, whether of sale or for another purpose, except one who has released,15 or assigned, 16 his interest, or who has been released,17 or an agent through whom the title has passed; 18 is ordinarily a necessary party to a suit to enforce it; 19 or to set it aside; 20 or unless its performance can B. S. v. Price, 110 U. S. 61, 28 14 Sage Land & Improvement Co. v. Ripley, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 785, where no such representative had been appointed. 15 Canal Co. v. Gordon, 6 Wall. 561, 18 L. ed. 894. 16 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Kindred, 14 Fed. 77; Mackay v. Gabel, 117 Fed. 873; U. S. v. Clark, 129 Fed. 241; O'Shaugnessy Humes, 129 Fed. 953. V. 17 Dodgs v. Frank Waterhouse & Co., 156 Fed. 57. 18 Donovan v. Campion, 85 Fed. 71; Gross v. George W. Scott Mfg. Co., 48 Fed. 35; Hamilton v. Savannah, F. & W. Ry. Co., 49 Fed. 412; Mackay v. Gabel, 117 Fed. 873. But see California v. So. Pac. Co., 157 U. S. 229, 39 L. ed. 683. 19 Mallow v. Hinde, 12 Wheat. 193, 6 L. ed. 599; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 15 L. ed. 158; Gregory v. Stetson, 133 U. S. 579, 33 L. ed. 792; Perin v. Megibben, 53 Fed. 86; Rollins Inv. Co. v. George, 48 Fed. 776; Farni v. Tesson, 1 Black, 309, 17 L. ed. 67; Judson v. Courier Co., 15 Fed. 541. McAulay v. Moody, 185 Fed. 144; Cristin v. Leonard, C. C. A., 209 Fed. 49. See § 119, supra. 20 Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 130, 15 L. ed. 158; Coiron v. Millaudon, 19 How. 113, 15 L. ed. 575; Gaylords v. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81, 17 L. ed. 612; Ribon v. Railroad Cos., 16 Wall. 446, 21 L. ed. 367; Lawrence v. Wirtz, 1 Wash. C. C. 417; Tobin v. Walkinshaw, 1 McAll, 26; Bell v. Donohoe, 17 Fed. 710; Florence S. Mach. Co. v. Singer Mfg. Co., 4 Fisher's Pat. Cas. 329; s. c., 8 Blatchf. C. C. 113; Chadbourne v. Coe, 45 Fed. 822; Empire C. & T. Co. v. Empire C. & M. Co., 150 U. S. 159, 37 L. ed. 1037; New Orleans W. Co. v. New Orleans, 164 U. S. 471, 41 L. ed. 518; s. c. in C. C. A., 51 Fed. 479; Clark v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 81 Fed. 282; U. S. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 134 Fed. 715; Beswick v. Dorris, 174 Fed. 502; Collins V. Penn-Wyoming Copper Co., 203 Fed. 726; Hayden v. Perfection Cooler Co., 217 Fed. 171; Am. Surety Co. of N. Y. v. Conway, 222 Fed. 140; Hawes v. First Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 229 Fed. 51; Am. Surety Co. v. Conway, 222 Fed. 140. Eq. Pl., 101, and cases there cited Cf. Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Pommer, 199 Fed. 309. But see French v. Shoemaker, 14 Wall. 314, 20 L. ed. 852; West v. Duncan, 42 would amount to a nuisance,21 or other tort unconnected with contract,22 to enjoin a person from carrying it into effect; even, it has been held, in a case at circuit, when the other parties are co-trustees beyond the jurisdiction of the court.23 But it has been held that a judgment debtor is not an indispensable party to a suit by the judgment creditor to set aside. the conveyance which he has made.24 The United States may sue to set aside conveyances, made by Indians, of allotted lands within the statutory period of restriction, without joining such allottees.25 The lessee by a railroad company of the right to remove culm from land which the company had formerly occupied as a right of way was held to be an indispensable party to a suit for an injunction against trespass by the company upon the land.26 A railway company is an indispensable party to a suit to enjoin another railway company from constructing a road under a lease by it.27 In a suit to enjoin the persuasion and assistance of contractors with plaintiff to violate their obligations, it was held that such contractors were indispensable parties.28 It seems that an entryman who has bought and paid for Government land is an indispensable party to a suit to enjoin the issue of a patent to him.29 Purchasers at a tax sale are indispensable parties to a suit by the United States to enjoin Fed. 430; Smith v. Lee, 77 Fed. 779. But see Grigsby v. Miller, 231 Fed. 521. 21 Miss. & Mo. R. Co. v. Ward, 2 Black, 485, 17 L. ed. 311. 22 Cole Silver Min. Co. v. Virginia & Gold Hill Water Co., Fed. Cas. No. 2,989 (1 Sawy. 470). But see Anderson et al. v. Bassman et al., 140 Fed. 10. 23 Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Michigan C. R. Co., 15 How. 233, 14 L. ed. 674; Raphael v. Trask, 194 U. S. 272, 48 L. ed. 973. But see Heriot V. Davis, 2 Woodb. & M. 229: Boon's Heir v. Chiles, 8 Pet. 532, 8 L. ed. 1034; McConnell v. Dennis, C. C. A., 153 Fed. 547; U. S. v. Bean, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 1; Wall v. Thomas, 41 Fed. 620; Veitia v. Fortuna Estates, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 256. 24 Bank of Commerce & Trust Co. v. McArthur, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 84, reversing 248 Fed. 138. 25 Heckman v. U. S., 224 U. S. 413, 56 L. ed. 820. 26 Patterson v. Delaware & Hudson Co., C. C. A., 251 Fed. 255. 27 Northern Ind. R. Co. v. Mich. C. R. Co., 15 How. 233, 14 L. ed. 674. 28 Sperry & Hutchinson Co. V. Pommer, 199 Fed. 309. 29 New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U. S. 52, 58. a conveyance to them; 30 but it was held that the assignors and mesne assignees of a patent for an invention are not necessary parties to a bill against the Commissioner to expunge it from the records of the Patent Office.31 To a bill in equity by a State, to enjoin a corporation from acquiring a majority of the stock of two competing railroad companies, chartered by such State, and thus obtaining and exercising ownership and control over their railroads; these railway companies, are indispensable parties." A city is an indispensable party to a suit by a company claiming a street railroad franchise, to enjoin another railroad company from occupying the street. 32a To a bill to set aside a decree, the party in whose favor the decree was made is an indispensable party. This rule applies to a judgment in favor of the United States which is voidable, but not void.33 To a bill against the administrator with the will annexed of Kosciuszko, claiming a legacy under an alleged codicil to the will, foreigners claiming the assets of the deceased as heirs at law were held necessary parties.34 To a bill between partners for an accounting, all the surviving partners and the representatives of a deceased partner, even when alleged to be insolvent, are, it seems, indispensable parties,35 unless it can be shown that each of those omitted has received his full share of the assets, and that no claim is made against him.36 All the partners must be joined as plaintiffs and defendants in a suit to recover money due the firm,37 or, it seems, to prevent the disposition of a fund 30 U. S. v. Bean, C. C. A., 253 Fed. 1. 31 Backus P. S. H. Co. v. Simonds, 2 App. D. C. 290. 32 Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U. S. 199, 46 L. ed. 499. 32a Tacoma Ry. & Power Co. v. Pacific Traction Co., 155 Fed, 259; Hoe v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 501, 19 L. ed. 762; Harwood v. Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 78, 21 L. ed. 558; Johnson v. Hunter, 127 Fed. 219. For a case where, upon a petition of intervention, a sale was set aside and a prior lien upon the property enforced, although the vendor, a trus tee, residing beyond the jurisdiction, was not before the court; see Anthony v. Campbell, C. C. A., 112 Fed. 212. 33 Buckley v. U. S., 196 Fed. 429. 34 Armstrong v. Lear, 8 Pet. 52, 8 L. ed. 863. 35 Bank v. Carrollton R. Co., 11 Wall. 624, 20 L. ed. 82; Bartle v. Coleman, 3 Cranch, C. C. 283; Gray v. Larrimore, 2 Abb. C. C. 542; Brew v. Cochran, 141 Fed. 459. 36 Towle V. Pierce, 12 Met. (Mass.) 329; Kilbourn v. Sunderland, 130 U. S. 505, 32 L. ed. 1005. 37 Edgell v. Felder, 84 Fed. 69. Where the business of the firm was |