Seeley v. Cornell

HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.

When complainants were here before as appellants,1 it was to complain of a decree dismissing their bill for want of indispensable parties. On that appeal the sole question for decision was whether complainants could, without joining the other heirs of their mother, maintain this suit, the purpose of which was to have Cornell, their agent and attorney, and the other defendants named in the bill, adjudged to be their trustees, and compelled to account to plaintiffs, as to their individual undivided interests in the lands and funds the bill described.

Answering that…