bill must aver the performance of all preliminary acts necessary to complete the complainant's title.154

A bill should show in what manner the complainant is injured.155 On a bill for injunction on the ground of the illegality of an ordinance the injury must be specified, and so pointed out that the court can see that it must be an inevitable consequence of the act threatened and complained of.156 Where a bill. presents to the court merely an abstract question and shows no equity in complainant, and contains no averment that complainant was injured by certain state statutes, the supreme court of the United States will not consider a question the object of which is merely to determine the constitutionality of the statutes, but will dismiss it without prejudice.157 It is not sufficient to charge a fraud, simply, but the bill must charge also some injury as the result of the fraud; but this rule does not require any considerable damage, and a slight injury as the result of the fraud will give the party injured the right to bring his action and cancel the contract.158

There should be sufficient averments to show that the defendant also has an interest in the subject-matter, and is liable to answer to the complainant therefor.159 Where there was no direct or positive averment that the defendants, or either of them, had any interest in the property claimed, or that it was in their

1541 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 40; Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 Mylne & K. 61. 1551 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 39; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Adams Express Co., 22 Fed. 404; Jones v. Myers, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 340; Willingham v. King, 23 Fla. 478, 2 So. 851; Hartshorn v. Inhabitants of South Reading, 3 Allen (Mass.) 501; Merchants' Bank v. Jeffries, 21 W. Va. 504; Green v. Hankinson's Adm'rs, Walk. (Miss.) 487.

156 Kearney v. Andrews, 10 N. J. Eq. 70.

157 Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72.

158 Linn v. Green, 17 Fed. 407; Wainscott v. Occidental Building & Loan Ass'n, 98 Cal. 253, 33 Pac. 88.

1591 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 39; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 177-179; Mitford, Eq. Pl. 160; Story, Eq. Pl. § 262; McClanahan v. Davis, 8 How. (U. S.) 170; Stillwell v. Adams, 29 Ark. 346; Humphreys v. Tate, 39 N. C. 220; Attorney General v. Whorwood, 1 Ves. Sr. 534; Muir v. Trustees of Leake & Watts Orphan House, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 477; Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co., 57 U. S. App. 730, 87 Fed. 51.

possession, no ground of relief against those parties was shown, and the right to a discovery, as incidental thereto, failed also.160 The same precision in showing an interest which is required in setting out the complainant's case is not requisite in setting out that of the defendant against whom the relief is sought, because the complainant cannot always be supposed to be cognizant of the nature of the defendant's interest;161 and where it is evident from the nature of the case that the complainant must be cognizant of the defendant's title, and sets out the same informally, yet if he alleges enough to show that the defendant has an interest, it will be sufficient.162

$91. Offer to do equity.

A complainant must allege in his bill that he has done, or of fered to do, or is ready to do, everything necessary to entitle him to the relief he seeks, or allege sufficient excuse for its nonperformance. 163 A bill to relieve from forfeiture for nonpayment of rent should allege a tender of the rent admitted to be due.184 On a bill to set aside a tax sale as illegal, it is held that the complainant should offer to reimburse the purchaser for all taxes paid by the latter.165 Where the vendor files a bill to set aside a deed on the ground of fraud, he should offer to do equity by returning the purchase money.' 166 A complainant who seeks relief

160 McClanahan v. Davis, 8 How. (U. S.) 170.

1611 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 40; Baring v. Nash, 1 Ves. & B. 551.

1621 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 40; Roberts v. Clayton, 3 Anstr. 715. A com. plainant is only required to state the interests of such defendants as his knowledge extends to, and as to others it is sufficient to say he cannot state what their interest is. Hungerford v. Cushing, 8 Wis. 332. It is not necessary for complainant to set out specially the nature of the claim of a defendant, which he wishes silenced. Lytle v. Breckenridge, 3 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 663.

163 Oliver's Ex'rs v. Palmer, 11 Gill & J. (Md.) 426; Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 Mylne & K. 61; Deans v. Robertson, 64 Miss. 195; Jackson v. Simmons, 98 Fed. 768.

164 Sheets v. Selden, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 416; Beecher v. Beecher, 43 Conn.

55%

165 Connors v. City of Detroit, 41 Mich. 128, 1 N. W. 902; Taylor v. Snyder, Walk. (Mich.) 490; Gage v. Kaufman, 133 U. S. 471.

166 United States v. White, 17 Fed. 561; Davis v. Gaines, 104 U. S. 386. See United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co., 137 U. S. 160.

167

against a judgment at law or other legal security on the ground of usury cannot be relieved except upon the reasonable terms of paying to the defendant what is really and bona fide due him.1 On a bill for discovery on a charge of usury, an injunction will not be granted to stay proceedings at law on the note or usurious contract, unless the complainant tenders or brings into court the money actually loaned, and the lawful interest thereon.168

A bill seeking to enjoin the collection of a portion of a tax as illegal is defective, even if it states grounds for relief, where it fails to offer or tender the amount of the taxes admitted to be legal.169

$ 92. Excusing laches.

If there are grounds which take a case out of the statute of limitations, they should be alleged in the bill, to prevent the statute being available on demurrer thereto.170 If the complainant seeks to avoid the effect of his laches on the ground of concealed fraud, he must set forth in his bill, with particularity, when and by what means the fraud was discovered. 171 Thus, a cestui que

167 Fanning v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 141; Taylor v. Bell, 2 Vern. 171; Scott v. Nesbit, 2 Brown Ch. 641; Judd v. Seaver, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 548; Livingston v. Harris, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 528. See, also, Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. 461.

168 Rogers v. Rathbun, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450.

169 Johnson v. Roberts, 102 Ill. 655; German Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575. See, also, Martin's Heirs v. Tenison, 26 Ala. 738; Craig v. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543; Peacock v. Terry, 9 Ga. 137; Overton v. Stevens, 8 Mo. 622; Post v. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 391; McRae v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 58 N. C. 395.

170 Henry County Sup'rs v. Winnebago Swamp Drainage Co., 52 Ill. 299; Boyd v. Wyley, 18 Fed. 355; Cary v. Simmons, 87 Ala. 524, 6 So. 416; Jarvis v. Martin's Adm'r, 45 W. Va. 347, 31 S. E. 957; Thompson v. Whitaker Iron Co., 41 W. Va. 574, 23 S. E. 795.

171 Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 178, 1 Hask. 391, Fed. Cas. No. 9,122; Harwood v. Cincinnati & C. R. Co., 17 Wall. (U. S.) 78; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. (U. S.) 819, 1 Story, 204, Fed. Cas. No. 13,339; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 87; Van Bokkelen v. Cook, 5 Sawy. 587, Fed. Cas. No. 16,831; Campau v. Chene, 1 Mich. 400; Radcliff v.

ing notice, notice should be a : 1

not a matter in issue on which the a

Rowley, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 2;

33; Nash v. Ingalls, 101 Fe Hi

Schoales & L. 607; Hubbard v. MathLES 87 Fed. 51; Patterson v. Hew XXI HL E 49 W. Va. 630, 39 S. E. 642

172 Badger v. Badger, 2 Wal (25 P.

204, Fed. Cas. No. 13,339.

173 Stearns v. Page, 7 How. (T. S.)

Arkansas Cent. R. Co., 15 Fed 4: Feb 13
Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 125; 1

57 U. S. App. 730, 87 Fed. 51. See Janssen : le Jones v. Slauson, 33 Fed. 632; Groes v. Samg Vit 12, 2 Fed. 38; Ulman v. Iaeger, 67 Fed. 98: Igas 36 N. E. 1016; Olden v. Hubbard, 34 N. I. Eg F 124 U. S. 183; Mackall v. Casilear, 137 S 174 Bertine v. Varian, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 14

175 Stearns v. Page, 7 How. (U. S.) 829.

176 Story, Eq. Pl. § 263; De Tastet v. Le Tene : Im

against a judgment at law or other legal security on the ground of usury cannot be relieved except upon the reasonable terms of paying to the defendant what is really and bona fide due him.167 On a bill for discovery on a charge of usury, an injunction will not be granted to stay proceedings at law on the note or usurious contract, unless the complainant tenders or brings into court the money actually loaned, and the lawful interest thereon.1

168

A bill seeking to enjoin the collection of a portion of a tax as illegal is defective, even if it states grounds for relief, where it fails to offer or tender the amount of the taxes admitted to be legal.169

$ 92. Excusing laches.

If there are grounds which take a case out of the statute of limitations, they should be alleged in the bill, to prevent the statute being available on demurrer thereto.170 If the complainant seeks to avoid the effect of his laches on the ground of concealed fraud, he must set forth in his bill, with particularity, when and by what means the fraud was discovered. 171 Thus, a cestui que

167 Fanning v. Dunham, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 141; Taylor v. Bell, 2 Vern. 171; Scott v. Nesbit, 2 Brown Ch. 641; Judd v. Seaver, 8 Paige (N. Y.) 548; Livingston v. Harris, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 528. See, also, Matthews v. Warner, 6 Fed. 461.

168 Rogers v. Rathbun, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 367; Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450.

169 Johnson v. Roberts, 102 Ill. 655; German Nat. Bank of Chicago v. Kimball, 103 U. S. 732; State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575. See, also, Martin's Heirs v. Tenison, 26 Ala. 738; Craig v. Chandler, 6 Colo. 543; Peacock v. Terry, 9 Ga. 137; Overton v. Stevens, 8 Mo. 622; Post v. Bank of Utica, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 391; McRae v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 58 N. C. 395.

170 Henry County Sup'rs v. Winnebago Swamp Drainage Co., 52 Ill. 299; Boyd v. Wyley, 18 Fed. 355; Cary v. Simmons, 87 Ala. 524, 6 So. 416; Jarvis v. Martin's Adm'r, 45 W. Va. 347, 31 S. E. 957; Thompson v. Whitaker Iron Co., 41 W. Va. 574, 23 S. E. 795.

171 Marsh v. Whitmore, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 178, 1 Hask. 391, Fed. Cas. No. 9,122; Harwood v. Cincinnati & C. R. Co., 17 Wall. (U. S.) 78; Stearns v. Page, 7 How. (U. S.) 819, 1 Story, 204, Fed. Cas. No. 13,339; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 87; Van Bokkelen v. Cook, 5 Sawy. 587, Fed. Cas. No. 16,831; Campau v. Chene, 1 Mich. 400; Radcliff v.