Necessary Joint Claimants and Tactical Witness Manipulation

The court upheld the dismissal of a claim brought by one entity where the action should have been brought by necessary joint claimants, finding no right to subsequent joinder in cases of necessary joint litigation, particularly when joinder is sought late in proceedings for tactical reasons. Furthermore, the court ruled that an individual who resigned from a corporate office solely to be eligible for witness testimony in a pending case could not be examined as a witness due to a lack of impartiality and because the resignation was clearly for tactical manipulation, and there is no entitlement to a procedural order compelling such joinder or procedural steps.