co-proprietors, some of whom are minors domiciled in other states of the Union, the court possessing jurisdiction of the partition suit and proceedings is fully authorized to direct the proceedings of a family meeting to deliberate and advise touching the interest of minors interested who reside abroad. Succession of Allen, 48 La. 1240 (20 So. Rep. 683). It is held that the courts of a state have equitable jurisdiction of trusts in lands situated therein, regardless of the residence of the parties in interest, and in such case when the trustee voluntarily submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court, both the res and the title to it are in court. Du Puy v. Standard Mineral Co., 88 Me. 202 (33 Atl. Rep. 976). The court say: "The early doctrine laid down by some writers that the remedy in equity is purely personal, and that, as decrees in equity never execute themselves, it is necessary to have jurisdiction of the person in order to make decrees effectual, does not hold true in all cases, and has been very generally discarded, inasmuch as jurisdiction of the res enables the court to execute its own decrees touching it by empowering an officer of the court to transfer titles, even to real estate, by sale or other apt methods, so that the equitable interests of all concerned may be preserved, and the property applied, or distribution of the assets made, as the respective interests therein may require."

Sec. 687. Jurisdiction—Injunction to prevent suit in another state. Where an insolvent debtor has made a statutory assignment for the benefit of his creditors and the assignee has obtained a decree against the assignor and his grantee for the reconveyance to him of property fraudulently conveyed, in which they acquiesce, a creditor whose claim has been filed with such assignee may be enjoined from the prosecution of a separate suit to subject the same property to his debt, although brought in another state in which the property is situated. Canty, J., dissenting. Hawkins v. Ireland, 64 Minn. 339 (67 N. W. Rep. 73; 58 Am. St. Rep. 534). The court say: "All the parties to this action are citizens of this state, and subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The facts that the land is in another state, and the action which the appellant is forbidden to further prosecute is there pending, do

not affect the question of the power of the court in the premises. The court, in such a case, simply commands its own citizens, not the courts of another state. A court of equity of this state has the power and will restrain its own citizens, of whom it has jurisdiction, from prosecuting suits in the courts of other states and foreign jurisdictions, whenever the facts of the case make such restraint necessary to enable the court to do justice, and prevent one citizen from obtaining an inequitable advantage over other citizens. The court acts in personam, and will not suffer anyone within its reach to do what is contrary to its notions of equity, merely because the act to be done may be, in point of locality, beyond its jurisdiction.' Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U. S. 298; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U. S. 107 (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 269); Cunningham v. Butler, 142 Mass. 47 (6 N. E. Rep. 782; 56 Am. Rep. 663, and note). No general rule can be laid down as to when and when not the court ought to exercise this power, and enjoin a party from prosecuting a suit in a foreign jurisdiction. Each case must be ruled by its own facts. If they show that it is necessary and equitable to exercise the power in the orderly administration of justice, the court should enjoin the party, otherwise not."

Sec. 688. Jurisdiction of parties-Notice by publication. Where the record of a judgment upon notice by pub. lication recites that such notice was duly given the judgment cannot be collaterally attacked by parol evidence to the contrary. Reedy v. Camfield, 159 Ill. 254 (42 N. E. Rep. 833). Michigan statute, 3 How. Ann. Stat., § 3332, providing for notice in condemnation proceedings against a nonresident landowner, construed and applied. Saginaw, T. &. H. R. Co. v. Bordner, 108 Mich. 236 (66 N. W. Rep. 62). N. C. Code, § 218 subd. 4; Act 1889, ch. 108, applied-service by publication. Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N. C. 700 (24 S. E. Rep. 527; 36 L. R. A. 402). The right given a defendant by Miss. Code, § 520, to apply for a vacation of a decree rendered against him on notice by publication is assignable. Fink v. Henderson, 74 Miss. 8 (19 So. Rep. 892). In an action to qiet title to real estate, service by publication may be made upon a nonresident defendant who cannot be summoned in the

state. It is not necessary that the affidavit for publication should set forth the cause of action, it is sufficient if it states that the defendant is a nonresident of the state and that service of summons cannot be made upon him, together with facts showing the action to be one of those embraced within the statute providing for constructive service. Scarborough v. Myrick, 47 Neb. 794 (66 N. W. Rep. 867). In construing Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 100, § 1, providing "that when any notice shall be required by law, or the order of court, or by any contract to be published in any newspaper, and no other mode of proving the same is provided, the certificate of the publisher, by himself or his authorized agent, with a written or printed copy of such notice annexed, stating the number of times which the same shall have been published, and the dates of the first and last papers containing the same, shall be sufficient evidence of the publication therein set forth," a certificate duly executed in the name of the corporation publishing the paper under seal by one having authority and who designates himself as "authorized agent" of the corporation is sufficient, although not countersigned by the secretary. Pentzel v. Squire, 161 Ill. 346 (43 N. E. Rep. 1064; 52 Am. St. Rep. 373).

Sec. 689. Notice by publication-As to what is a newspaper. Where a statute (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 77, § 14) requires certain legal notices to be published "in a public newspaper," and the statute (ch. 100, § 5) further provides that "when any notice is required by law or contract to be published in a newspaper (unless otherwise expressly provided in the contract), it shall be intended to be a secular newspaper of general circulation, published in the city, town or county, or some paper especially authorized by law to publish legal notices in the city, town or county," it is held that these statutes are complied with by the publication of the notice in a secular newspaper of 16 pages 12 inches by 10 inches which circulates among lawyers and laymen and contains reports of judicial decisions, digest of cases and current news of a general nature. Pentzel v. Squire, 161 Ill. 346 (43 N. E. Rep. 1064; 52 Am. St. Rep. 373).

Sec. 690. Jurisdiction-Legal and equitable. In Michigan the distinction between law and equity is maintained. The courts of law have no jurisdiction to reform written instruments, such jurisdiction being vested exclusively in courts of equity. Johnson v. Wilson, 111 Mich. 114 (69 N. W. Rep. 149). Equity has no jurisdiction to interfere with a judgment at law unless the complainant has an equitable defense of which he cannot avail himself at law or had a good defense at law which he was prevented from availing himself of by fraud or accident unmixed with negligence in himself or his agents. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Taylor, 93 Va. 226 (24 S. E. Rep. 1013). Citing, Knox Co. v. Harshman, 133 U. S. 152 (10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 257). The jurisdiction of a court of equity extends to all matters necessary to wind up the affairs of a partnership, including the sale of real estate; and the jurisdiction is not local even though a part of the assets consist of real estate and although that property may be situated in another county or state. Dunlap v. Byers, 110 Mich. 109 (67 N. W. Rep. 1067). Citing, Godfrey v. White, 43 Mich. 171 (5 N. W. Rep. 243); Graydon v. Church, ī Mich. 36; Lindsay v. Race, 103 Mich. 28 (61 N. W. Rep. 271); Lyman v. Lyman, 2 Paine 11 (Fed. Cas. No. 8,628); Griggs v. Clark, 23 Cal. 427; Jones v. Fletcher, 42 Ark. 422; Wright v. Ward, 65 Cal. 525 (4 Pac. Rep. 534); 1 Story, Eq. Jur., §§ 743, 744,1295-1297; 2 Bates, Partn., § 907. The right of a telegraph company to establish lines along the right of way of a railroad company whose property is in the hands of receivers, pending foreclosure, may be presented and adjudicated by intervention in the foreclosure proceedings. Union Trust Co. of New York v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (Postal Telegraph Cable Co. Intervenors) 8 N. M. 327 (43 Pac. Rep. 701). Citing, Knippendorf v. Hyde, 4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 27; 2 Daniel Ch. Prac. 1057; Vault Co. v. McNulta, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 915; Joy v. City St. Louis, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 243. Equitable jurisdiction cannot be invoked by one who has a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law. Weiss v. Levy, 166 Mass. 290 (44 N. E. Rep. 225). In order for the existence of a remedy at law to prevent equitable jurisdiction, the remedy at law must be as practical and efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in

equity. Nathan v. Nathan, 166 Mass. 294 (44 N. E. Rep. 221); Carl et al. v. West Aberdeen Land and Imp. Co, 13 Wash. St. 616 (43 Pac. Rep. 890).

Sec. 691. Jurisdiction-Equity will retain when. Where a court has taken jurisdiction of a controversy between a vendor and vendee upon the latter's bill for rescission, it is error to dismiss such bill without prejudice to the complainant's right to sue for specific performance, it appearing that he might upon an accounting become entitled to that sort of relief, but the court should retain its jurisdiction of the controversy, have an account taken and give the parties full relief. Kirschbaum v. Coon, Va. (25 S. E. Rep. 658). Where a court of equity has once acquired jurisdiction of a case on equitable grounds it may go on to a complete adjudication, even to establishing legal rights and granting legal remedies that would otherwise be beyond the scope of its authority. Kane v. Mann, 93 Va. 239 (24 S. E. Rep. 938). In actions of ejectment it is held that the court has jurisdiction to settle and determine all the rights and equities of the parties growing out of their joint or common ownership of the prop erty, including their liability on account of charges upon the land. Moore v. Moore, 89 Tex. 29 (33 S. W. Rep. 217).

Sec. 692. Former adjudication-General principles, The two essential elements of the doctrine of res adjudicata are the identity of the parties to the suit, and the identity of the issue necessarily involved. It must also appear that the issue which terminated in the former judgment was between the same parties, in the same right or capacity. Morrison v. Clark, 89 Me. 103 (35 Atl. Rep. 1034; 56 Am. St. Rep. 395). In order to render a former adjudication conclusive, the identity of the issues and of the rights determined must affirmatively appear. Bugbee v. Davis, 167 Mass. 33 (44 N. E. Rep. 1055). Parties are concluded, not only by what has been actually litigated and determined in a case, but also by what, under the pleadings, might have been litigated and determined. Haseltine v. Gilleland, 2 Kan. App. 456 (43 Pac. Rep. 88); Isensce v. Austin, 15 Wash. St. 352 (46 Pac.