56 Me. 360 | Me. | 1868
The principal ground, set forth in the demurrer to this bill, is that it is multifarious. Before examining the allegations in the bill, it is important to ascertain what is the true definition of multifariousness as applied to a bill in equity, and its extent and limitations. Equity, whilst it is broad and liberal in the application of remedies,
Where the object of the bill is single, to establish and obtain relief for one claim, in which all the defendants may be interested, it is not multifarious. Bugbee v. Sargent, 23 Maine, 269. "A bill is not to be regarded as multifarious when it states a right to account from A & B against whom it has one remedy which it seeks to enforce, and also claims a lien against A for what is due.” Story’s Eq. PL, § 284.
A bill is not multifarious when it sets up one substantial ground of relief ’and also another on which no relief can be had. Varrick v. Smith, 5 Paige, 137.
In the case of Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. C. R., 432, Chancellor Walworti-i, after stating that there did not appear to be any necessary connection between the different subject matters stated in the bill, says that, " the counsel is wrong in supposing that two distinct and independent matters or claims, by the same complainant against the same defendant, cannot properly be united in the same bill. Multifariousuess in a bill is only where different matters, having no connection with each other, are joined in the bill against several defendants, having no interest in or connection with, one or more of the distinct causes of action or claims for which the bill is brought, so that such defendants are put to
Story also says, — that " the objection of multifariousness and the circumstances under which it will be allowed to prevail, or not, is, in many cases, a matter of discretion and no general rule can be laid down-on the subject.” . Eq. Plead., § 284.
The Supreme Court of the United States takes the same view in Gaines v. Chew, 2 How., 619, and in Oliver v. Platt, 3 How., 411. In the latter case, the Court say,— " We are of opinion that the bill is in no just sense multifarious. It is true'that it embraces the claims of both companies, but these interests are so mixed up in all these transactions that entire justice could scarcely be done, at least, not conveniently be done, without a union of the proprietors of both companies. It was well observed, by Lord Coltenham, in Campbell v. McKay, 1 Mylne & Craig, 603, and the same doctrine was affirmed in this Court, in Gaines v. Chew, 2 Howard, 642, that it is impracticable to lay down any rule as to what constitutes'multifariousness as an abstract proposition; that each case must depend upon its own circumstances, and much must necessarily be left, where the authorities leave it, to the sound discretion of the Court.”
If we apply the doctrines and principles of these authorities to the facts in this case, we tail to find sufficient foundation to the objections made, to require us to dismiss the bill on the ground of multifariousuess.
The case presented in the bill is substantially one between partners, seeking for an adjustment of partnership business. It sets forth a co-partnership as existing between the com
That such a partnership existed during that time, is distinctly averred. The bill in fact seeks for an adjustment of that partnership, aud the ascertainment of the rights of the different parties during the existence of that firm. It is true that it sets forth the existence of a co-partnership between John and Nathaniel Warren for many years before 1845, and that the complainants are the heirs of John. If the bill had been framed as claiming a right as heirs alone to have an adjustment of the partnership, without showing any other connection with the co-partnership, than as heirs of their father, it might well bo questioned whether such a bill should not bo instituted by an administrator and not by the heirs. But the bill sets forth that the complainants, being heirs, " were admitted by Nathaniel into the partnership before stated.” They then became co-partucrs, and not simply heirs, aud came in as members of the firm, as individuals, and not in their representative capacity. They now ask that the old co-partnership matters may be examined, not on the ground that they were members of the firm before their father’s death, but because they were so intimately connected with the business after his death, that it is necessary to investigate and settle these prior matters, in order to determine the rights of the parties under the firm as it existed after the complainants came in.
If they came in, assuming simply their father’s place by consent or understanding with the surviving partner, and entitled to all his interest in the firm property, and liable for all its debts, then it may be that they should be held entitled or liable, as the case might be, from the settlement in 1824. In such a case, if it became necessary to institute a bill in equity to adjust the affairs of the firm, thus continued, it clearly would not be multifarious to connect the prior with the subsequent transactions aud seek for an adjustment of both, where the parties are the same.
The allegations in the bill in reference to the branch partnership, in which one Walker was originally a party, do not appear to us as improper, or- as such distinct and independent and unconnected matters as bring them within the objection of multifariousness. That partnership was in relation to one branch only of the business of the general firm, and was confined to that particular busiuess. It was well likened by the counsel for the complainants to the branches of a co-partnership, so common in mercantile transactions, existing in different cities or countries. It is not properly a distinct and independent firm, but a Avheel within a wheel, or a branch from a common trunk.
If Walker.had remained as a partner, he, undoubtedly, should have been made a party. But the bill shows that, in 1854, Walker sold out his interest, and received from the partnership his share of the profits, and fully accounted for his share of the property. On the same day, the complainants purchased of Nathaniel Warren, the testator, his interest in the lumbering business, Avhich was the sole business of the branch firm. Thus that particular union Avas dissolved, and Walker had no further interest, and no claim is made upon him, nor any that could affect his interests.
How far the purchase by the complainants of Nathaniel Warren’s interest was a full and final settlement, so far as that branch of the business is concerned, we cannot deter
We are not called upon to consider, on this demurrer, whether or not the statute of limitations should be applied to any part of the transactions between the parties, or whether they wore in the nature of merchants’ accounts, or open transactions, the investigation of which would not be precluded by the statute. These questions may well await the answers and proof. There is nothing in the bill which on its face shows that the cause of complaint is necessarily and absolutely barred by the statute of limitations.
Demurrer overruled.
