Multifariousness is'incapable of exact definition, and the impossibility of laying down any general rule whereby it may be determined in all cases whether the obection is well taken has been often recognized. “The objection is frequently a matter of discretion, and so the circumstances under which it is allowed to prevail, so that every case must in a measure be governed by what is convenient and equitable under its own peculiar facts, subject to the recognized principles of equity jurisprudence; and it is always proper to exercise this discretion in such manner as to discourage future litigation about the same subject-matter and to prevent multiplicity of suits, and never so as to do plain violence to the maxim, that courts of equity delight to do justice and not by halves.’ ” — Adams v. Jones, 68 Ala. 117. No
The complainant in the present bill comes into the equity court as the owner and as being in possession of a certain lot, a portion of a plot of one acre, which originally belonged to his vendor, Wheeler. The defendant Guyllon, who filed the demurrer on which the decree we are reviewing was rendered, is alleged to have previously purchased from Wheeler another portion of the acre, and to have taken possession of that portion so- purchased and that only; and the common vendor, Wheeler, is alleged to have retained and yet to own the remainder, of the plot, the three parties together owning the whole, and each being in possession of his respective part. As a result of inaccuracies and misdescriptions in each of’ the deeds from Wheeler and wife to their two vendees, confusion of boundaries on the face of the paper titles has resulted; and Guyllon, claiming that her deed from Wheeler, properly construed, conveyed the land claimed by complainant, has instituted an action of ejectment against complainant to recover the lot of which he is in possession. The complainant files this bill against Guyl-Icu and against Wheeler and wife, the common grantors, seeking to correct the errors and misdescriptions in both deeds, to enjoin the ejectment suit, and for general relief. In support of the grounds of demurrer, which assert that the bill is multifarious, it is argued: (1) That there are no connection between the deeds made by Wheeler and wife to Guyllon and the ded subsequntly ’
Proceeding, therefore, to enforce against Guyllou the right to have a correction of the latter’s deed, he may, as incidental thereto, and to secure complete relief, proceed further and ask that the ejectment suit be restrained. All the equities asserted by the bill are therefore connected together, and all converge to the end and purpose of quieting complainant’s title and possession, and, furthermore, to the settling of the boundaries between the three persons whose separate holdings make up the acre tract. No- doubt the complainant might have maintained a bill against Wheeler and wife alone to correct their deed to him; but under the facts alleged, and in view of the situation of the parties and their relation to each other, we hold he might go further, for .the purpose of preventing a multiplicity of suits, and also seek a correction of Wheeler’s deed to Guyllou, with a consequent injunction of the latter’s ejectment suit. There is a unity of purpose in the bill, and all the equi
Appellees’ counsel make no argument in support of the other grounds of demurrer. We have examined them, however, and are of opinion that they are not well taken. The decree of the chancellor sustaining the demurrer is reversed. A decree is here rendered overruling the same, and the cause will be remanded for further procedings.
Reversed, rendered, and remanded.