Supreme Court Gaines v. Chew, 43 U. It is impossible to lay down any general rule as to what constitutes multifariousness in a bill in equity. Every case must be governed by its own circumstances, and the court must exercise a sound discretion. A bill filed against the executors of an estate and all those who purchased from them, is not, upon that account alone, multifarious.
Under the Louisiana law, the court of probate has exclusive jurisdiction in the proof of wills, which includes those disposing of real as well as personal estate.
In England, equity will not set aside a will for fraud and imposition, relief being obtainable in other courts. Although by the general law, as well as the local law of Louisiana, a will must be proved before a title can be set up under it, yet a court of equity can so far exercise jurisdiction as to compel defendants to answer, touching a will alleged to be spoliated. And it is a matter for grave consideration, whether it cannot go further and set up the lost will.
Where the heir at law assails the validity of the will by bringing his action against the devisee or legatee who sets up the will as his title, the district courts of Louisiana are the proper tribunals, and the powers of a court of chancery are necessary in order to discover frauds which are within the knowledge of the defendants.
Express trusts are abolished in Louisiana by the law of that state, but that implied trust, which is the creature of equity, has not been abrogated. The exercise of chancery jurisdiction by the circuit court of the United States, sitting in Louisiana, does not introduce any new or foreign principle. It is only a change of the mode of redressing wrongs and protecting rights. This case was a sequel to that which came before the court twice before, and is reported in 38 U. It came up again from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting as a court of equity, on a certificate of a division of opinion in that court, upon the three following questions:.
