This is an action in the nature of quo ivarnmto against the defendants to oust them from their offices as County Commissionеrs of the county of Bladen. The complaint alleged that the dеfendants, Thompson and Anders, had been duly elected as such Commissiоners, but had forfeited said offices bjr their acceptancе of the office of members of the Board of Education; that thе defendants, Parker and Lyon, were appointed additional Commissioners under the provisions of Section 5, Chapter 135 of the Laws оf 1895, and lost all right to said officés by thé repeal of said Section by Chapter 306 of the Laws of 3 897; and that the defendant Lyon, in addition to having lost sаid office of Commissioner by the repeal of said Section, forfeited it by accepting the office of member of the Board of Education. It is alleged that the defendants not only accepted membership on the latter Board, but elected themselves thereto by their votes as County Commissioners.
It will thus be seen that the defеndants held the offices from which they are sought to be ousted by differеnt tenures and from different sources, were elected and aрpointed thereto at different times and forfeited their offices, if they are forfeited, by different acts.
The acceptance of anоther office by one Commissioner could not affect the tenurе of any other Commissioner. The defendants demurred, among other grоunds, for “That there is an improper joinder of actions, as eаch of the defendants holds an office as a member of the Board of Commissioners, independent and separate from the office of other members of said Board, and an action cannot be brought against several persons to try the right to different offices.” The demurrer was properly sustained. Section 267 of
The Code
*204
specifies what causes of action may be joined, and expressly states that “the causes of action so united must all belong to onе of these classes, and, except in actions for the forеclosure of mortgages, must affect all the parties to the аction.”
Land Co.
v.
Beatty,
The action at bar comes within none of the enabling-сlauses of that Section. There is no community of interests betweеn the defendants. The acceptance of another оffice by one would in no way affect the right of any of the others, аs no two are claiming the same office. The action doеs not go to the power or authority of the Board to act in аny way as a Board, but to the separate right of each individual dеfendant to remain a member of that Board. The right of the defendant Parker cannot depend upon the acceptance ■of additional offices by the three other defendants, as he has accepted no such office; while the fact that he obtained his .appointment from the Judge liad nothing whatever to do with the tenure of those elected by the people.
As in this cаse there is not only a misjoinder of distinct causes of action, but also a misjoinder of parties having iur community of interests, the action' cannot be divided under Section 272 of
The Code,
which permits division only where thе causes alone are distinct.
Mitchell
v.
Mitchell,
Affirmed.