King v. . Farmer

Ashe, J. The first cause of demurrer assigned, is, to the misjoinder of parties, in that, some of the parties having a common interest with the plaintiffs in the several causes of action united in the complaint, are joined with the defendant, Farmer, in the cause of action for the purchase money, or specific performance. If this were the only cause of action the objection would be tenable; but the several causes of actions are such as (will be hereinafter shown) may be and should be united, not only under the provisions of the Code, but according to the practice in former equity proceedings. The complainants allege that the defendant, Farmer, has made payments to different members of the shareholders,, but to .whom, and what amounts, they have no means of ascertaining without an account; and they pray for a settlement of the trust and partnership concern, and for the distribution of whatever balance may be ascertained, which necessarily involves the taking of an account. In these respects, the defendants joined with Farmer, as defendants, are given their proper position in the action. Their interest to be sure is in common with the plaintiffs, but it is not concurrent, and so far as they may have received parts of the rents and purchase money, and are therefore liable to account, it is to some extent adverse. As to the cause assigned for misjoinder "of causes of action: Section 126 of the Code provides that the plaintiff may unite in the same complaint several causes of action, whether they be *26 such as have been heretofore denominated legal or equitable, or both, when they all arise out of the same transaction; or transactions connected with the same subject of action; and sub-division 7 of the section requires that the causes of action “must affect all the parties to the action.” It was evidently the purpose of the legislature, in enacting this section, to prevent a multiplication of actions, by uniting in the same action different causes of action, where they might be joined, without subjecting defendants to the trouble and expense of making different and distinct defences to the same action. No general rule has been or can be adopted with regard to multifariousness. It is most usually a question of convenience, in deciding which) the courts consider the nature of the causes united, and if they are of so different and dissimilar a character as to put the defendants to great and useless expense, they will not permit them to be litigated in the same record; but where the different causes of action are of the same character and between the same parties, plaintiff and defendant, and none other, and no additional expense or trouble will be incurred by the joinder of the.several causes, the courts in the exercise of a sound discretion, on the ground of convenience, usually refuse to entertain an objection to the joinder. “The principle on this subject,” says Judge Story, “seems to be, that where there is a common liability and a common interest, a common liability on the defendants and a common interest in the plaintiffs,, different claims to property, at least if the subjects are such as may without inconvenience be joined, may be united in the same suit.” Story’s Eq. Pleading, § 583. In Bedsole v. Monroe, 5 Ired. Eq., 313, Chief-Justice Ruffin announces the doctrine to be, that “if the grounds of the bill be not entirely distinct and wholly unconnected, if they arise out of one and the samé transaction, or series of transactions, forming one course of dealing, and all tending to one end; if one unconnected story can be told of the whole, the objection cannot *27 apply”; and this principle was cited and approved in the more recent case of Young v. Young, 81 N. C., 91. In our ease the agreement between the parties to form a joint stock company to build a hotel — to purchase land for its site— the fact of purchase — the erection of the hotel — the lease first, and then the sale to Farmer — all constituted a series of transactions connected together, and forming one course of dealing. The plaintiffs and the defendants, other than Farmer, have-a common interest in each and every cause of action, and there is a liability on the defendant, Farmer, to each of the other parties to the action for the balance of the purchase money and renjts and profits, in proportion to their respective interests. These causes of action, according to the principles above announced, may be united; and if so, it follows as a legal corollary that the accounts, as prayed for in the complaint, must be taken to ascertain the balances and the amounts due to each of the parties. There is no error. The demurrer is overruled and the cause remanded to the superior court of Henderson county, that it may be proceeded with according to law. No error. Affirmed.