denied. Where the stockholder's bill prayed that the defendant pay to the corporation the triple damages under the Sherman Law, it was held that there could not be a decree directing the corporation to sue, or if it failed to sue, permitting the plaintiff to sue in its name and on its behalf. Fleitman v. Wellsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U. S. 27. It was held that a prayer for general relief in a bill seeking a transfer of stock did not authorize a decree against the corporation for dividends paid to the holders of such stock pending the suit. Georgia S. & F. Ry. v. Einstein, C. C. A., 218 Fed. 55. Where the bill prayed an injunction against a waste and a trespass, that there could be no decree to remove a cloud upon the plaintiff's title to the property. U. S. v. Brookshire Oil Co., 242 Fed. 718. Where a bill prayed that a statute be declared void, as a direct tax upon property forbidden by the State Constitution and a denial to the plaintiff of the equal protection of the laws, under the Federal Constitution the Court refused to consider the question whether the statute was in part invalid as an obstruction to interstate commerce. Union Sulphur Co. v. Reed, 249 Fed. 172. In a suit upon a bill praying an injunction against the erection and operation of coke ovens on a certain street, and for general relief, the appellate court modified the decree by striking out so much thereof as granted an injunction against the operation of coke ovens so near the plaintiff's premises as to injure them by the exhalations thereform, on the ground that this was not agreeable to the case made by the bill.

Rainey v. Herbert, C. C. A., 55 Fed. 443. Under a bill to enjoin a postmaster from refusing to transmit a magazine at second-class rates, it was held that the court would not enjoin him from limiting the number of copies to a smaller number than the bill alleged that complainant was entitled to send, when, pending the suit, a new permit was granted with such a limitation. Lewis Pub. Co. v. Wyman, 168 Fed. 756. Under a bill for specific performance, the equity side of the court has no power to grant a judg ment for a quantum meruit. M'Kinney v. Big Horn Basin Development Co., C. C. A., 167 Fed. 770. Where a stockholder's bill prayed that a foreclosure sale be set aside for fraud and that the defendants restore to the mortgagor the mortgaged property and the proceeds thereof, it was held that the court could not enter a judgment directing the majority of the stockholders to account to the plaintiff and other members of the minority for the profits they had gained through the foreclosure and reorganization therewith connected. MacArdell v. Olcott, 189 N. Y. 368. In the following cases relief not prayed in bill was granted: In a suit brought to establish a boundary, the Court entered a decree quieting the title of each party as against the other. Mercelis v. Wilson, 235 U. S. 579. Under a bill which prayed an injunction against the pollution of a spring and general relief, a Vermont court granted a decree confirming the complainant's title to the spring and enjoining interference with the same, Coffain v. Cole, 67 Vt. 226. Where the prayers were that the

complainants should be decreed to be equitable owners of a part of an award and that the party claiming the whole and officers of the United States be enjoined from the receipt or payment of the amount thereof, to the detriment of the complainants' interests, under the prayer for general relief the court awarded a decree determining the amount to which the complainants were entitled and directing its payment by the defendant who claimed the whole. McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285. Where a bill prayed the recovery of securities deposited with the defendant under a syndicate agreement and it appeared that the securities had been exchanged for others, upon which the defendant claimed a lien, the court entered a decree for a delivery of the plaintiff's proportionate share of the new securities free from any lien. Kelly v. Illinois State Trust Co., C. C. A., 215 Fed. 567. Where a bill prayed a cancellation of certain deeds as a cloud upon the title to property mortgaged to the plaintiff who was not then entitled to the possession, the court upon granting this relief, it appearing that the mortgagee under the terms of the mortgage was then entitled to the possession, gave the same to it. Continental Trust Co. v. Tallassee Falls Mfg. Co., 222 Fed. 694. Where the bill prayed the enforcement of a mechanic's lien on the mortgaged premises, the complainant, under the prayer for general relief, was granted an order directing the owner of the equity of redemption and the mortgagee to sign a check to enable it to withdraw funds deposited as security for its

work. Turner Const. Co. v. Union Terminal Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 120. Where a cross-bill filed by the lessor in a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien on a property leased, prayed for a foreclosure of the lessor's liens upon improvements and for general relief, the court granted a decree providing that on the les sor's payment of the liens therein declared to be superior to her rights, she should become absolute owner of the property and of the improvements. Mellon v. St. Louis Union Tr. Co., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 359. In a suit to enforce a lien for the price of stock deposited in escrow, the court may enter a decree for specific performance of the contract, although no lien exists. David v. M'Rae, 183 Fed. 812. Under a complaint for the rescission of a sale of land to a minor and for general relief, a Texan court decreed the foreclosure of a lien for the purchase-money. Morris v. Holland, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 474; s. c., 31 S. W. R. 690. Upon a bill to compel an agent to account for illicit profits, received by him from contractors with his employers, and to follow the same into securities of other property held for him by other defendants; it was held that, under the prayer for general relief, a decree could be entered as for money had and received for the complainant's use for any difference between the cost of the specific property recovered and the profits thus corruptly obtained. U. S. v. Carter, 217 U. S. 286, 291, 54 L. ed. 769. In Mich igan, a bill which alleged that the defendant had levied as sheriff was held to support an injunction against him in his official capacity

although the prayer for relief did not describe him as sheriff. Wight v. Roethlisberger, 116 Mich. 241; S. c., 74 N. Y. 474. Where the bill prayed merely a perpetual and not an interlocutory injunction against the construction of a street railway, and the facts proved upon the final hearing showed that an injunction then would not be justified, the Supreme Court held that the bill was properly dismissed, although it contained a prayer for general relief and averments supported by the evidence which showed that the com plainant might be entitled to damages in the suit; since the aver ments were not introduced for that purpose and the complainant at the hearing disclaimed any desire for such relief. Osborne v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 147 U. S. 248, 260, 37 L. ed. 155, 161. Where a bill by a mortgagee, who had bought the property at a foreclosure sale, prayed that the right of redemption of a defendant, who was not a party to the foreclosure suit, might be cut off because he was in privity with one of the defendants to the same and bound by the decree; it was held, that the court might order a general foreclosure and a resale of the property under the prayer for general relief. London & San Francisco Bank v. Dexter Horton & Co., C. C. A., 126 Fed. 593. In a suit for an accounting under a contract, a decree was made

directing an accounting, including the proceeds of property not covered by the contract which had been wrongfully taken by the defendant. Stennick v. Jones, C. C. A., 225 Fed 345. In a suit to enjoin unfair competition and an infringement of trade mark, relief was granted as to a trade mark not described in the bill where it appeared in one of the exhibits and the defendant's answer denied its infringement. Gordon's Dry Gin Co. v. Eddy & Fisher Co., 246 Fed. 954. In a suit to enforce a trust in securities, under the prayer for general relief, the complainant was decreed the securities upon proof that she was the original owner thereof. Ambrosius v. Ambrosius, C. C. A., 239 Fed. 473. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 829; holding that the court could enforce an order by the plaintiff, upon different reasons than those assigned by the Commission for its conclusion, when the bill alleged generally that the rule of the company, set aside by the Commission, was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act. But see authorities cited supra, §§ 136, 137. 6 Bay State Gas Co. v. Rogers, 147 Fed. 557, 574; A. B. Dick Co. v. Fuller, 198 Fed. 404.

7 People's Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Chicago, 194 U. S. 1, 16, 48 L. ed. 851, 856.