Couch, C.J:— I think that, in deciding this case, we must take the latter part of the question which has been stated by the learned Judges, and take it in connexion with what the suit appears to be. We are asked whether, in a suit to set aside the sale of a property held by several shareholders, each of them is entitled to sue separately; and I think we must consider the question as meaning entitled to sue separately in the manner in which the present suit is brought. It is a suit to set aside the sale of the property. It is true that the plaintiff has made the other co-sharers defendants in the suit; but he has asked to have the possession of his own share. Although he may have in terms asked to have the sale set aside, he is by the valuation of his suit limited to the setting aside the sale of his own share only. By the framing of the suit in this way, he has brought it in a Court in which he could not have brought it if it had been a suit to set aside the sale as to the entire property. I think he was unable to sue in that way; he has in fact sued in respect of part only of the cause of action, — namely, that which applied only to himself; the cause of action was the sale of the whole, and the suit ought to be framed and valued accordingly; and be brought in such a Court that the rights of all the parties interested in setting aside the sale might be declared in one suit. I think the decisions of the Courts below were right, and that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.