46 Iowa 44 | Iowa | 1877
The misjoinder was not only of causes of action hut of
We think this must be true, for the reason that the causes of action referred to in the chapter of the Code in which the foregoing sections are contained, are “ causes of action of whatever kind when each may be prosecuted by the same kind of proceedings, provided, that they be by the same party, and against the same party in the same rights. Code, Sec. 2630.
The action in the present case is not against the same party, but against three separate and distinct parties. If the peti tion had stated the matters shown by the evidence the defendants should have demurred, on the ground that the facts stated in the petition did not entitle the plaintiff to the relief demanded. Code, Sec. 2648.
It was held in Hinkle v. Davenport, 38 Iowa, 355, that a joint action for slander could not be maintained, and the same must be true in the present case.
As the facts shown by the evidence were not stated in the petition, the proper mode of raising -the objection was by answer; failing to do so the objection should be deemed waived. Code, Sec. 2650.
Under the pleadings and evidence the court erred in rendering separate judgments against the defendants! The plaintiff was entitled to a joint judgment or nothing.
Although what has been said reverses the judgment below, still, as there must be a re-trial, we ordinarily would pass upon the remaining questions in the case, but as this involves a
Reversed.