Equity Jurisdiction, Remedy at law, Multiplicity of suits. Bond. Practice, Civil.
A bill in equity for the cancellation of a bond given to the treasurer and receiver general of the Commonwealth under St. 1905, c. 428, by the plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of selling steamship tickets for transportation to and from foreign countries and, in conjunction therewith, in the business of receiving deposits of money for the purpose of transmitting the same or equivalents thereof to foreign countries, which is conditioned upon the plaintiff faithfully holding and transmitting any money or the equivalent thereof delivered to him for transmission, cannot be maintained on allegations of unconstitutionality of the statute and of liability of the plaintiff to be subjected to a multiplicity of vexatious actions upon the bond which would be avoided by a decree in the equity suit declaring the statute unconstitutional, since the question of the constitutionality of the statute may be raised once for all in any action upon the bond, and a decision that the bond is invalid could be pleaded in bar to the prosecution of any and all other actions thereon, and, therefore, the plaintiff has a complete and adequate remedy at law.
MORTON, J.
This is a bill for the cancellation of a bond given by the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of St. 1905, c. 428, on the ground that the statute is unconstitutional and the bond, therefore, void. It is clear that the question of the unconstitutionality of the statute can be raised in an action on the bond, and that the plaintiff has, therefore, a remedy at law. The plaintiff, however, insists that the remedy at law is not adequate or complete because he may be subjected to a multiplicity of vexatious suits. But the question of constitutionality may be raised once for all in any action upon the bond, or, if a number of actions are brought at the same time, it can be raised in all of them, and a decision in the plaintiff's favor on the question of constitutionality in any one action can be pleaded in bar to the prosecution of any and all other actions upon the bond.
There is no doubt that, since St. 1877, c. 178, this court has full equity jurisdiction and that, by virtue thereof, it has power in cases of fraud to declare an instrument void and to compel its cancellation and delivery, Gargano v. Pope, 184 Mass. 571. But this is not such a case. There is no doubt, also, about the jurisdiction of this court in a case involving a multiplicity of suits. But this is not a case to which that doctrine applies. If the statute is constitutional, the plaintiff is liable for separate and independent breaches of the bond, and, as already observed, a judgment in the plaintiff's favor on the question of constitutionality in one action will settle all others. The result is that the demurrer must be sustained and the bill dismissed. It is not necessary to consider the motion to dismiss.
Demurrer sustained; bill dismissed.