Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mutual Life Insurance v. Gillette 104 N.Y.S. 683

← Cases

Mutual Life Insurance v. Gillette

104 N.Y.S. 683 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1907-05-31 English

Delivered by • SCOTT, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 683
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. GILLETTE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 31, 1907.)

Headnote

Action—Misjoinder.
A complaint setting out two complete causes of action, one in equity for an accounting, and the other at law for damages, is a misjoinder of actions, and bad on demurrer.
. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 1, Action, § 449.]
Appeal from Special Term.
. Action by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York against Walter R. Gillette. From an interlocutory judgment on demurrer for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARICE, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.
James McKeen, for appellant.
Edmund L. Mooney, for respondent.

The plaintiff has so framed its complaint as to set out two complete causes of action—one in equity for an accounting-concerning the disposition of a fund over which, as it is said, the defendant had custody and control; the other at law for damages claimed to have resulted from the wrongful or negligent acts of defendant in auditing .bills against the plaintiff, payable out of its general funds, and not out of the" special fund alleged to have been within defendant’s custody. It is true that these two causes of action are not separately stated and numbered as such, but they are as distinct as if they were so stated and numbered. It is manifest that these two causes of action cannot be united in one complaint, and therefore the demurrer was properly disposed of in the court below.

The cases relied upon by plaintiff to sustain its pleading (Bosworth v. Allen, 168 N. Y. 157 , 61 N. E. 163 , 55 L. R. A. 751 , 85 Am. St. Rep. 667 ; Mabon v. Miller, 81 App. Div. 11 , 80 N. Y. Supp. 979 ) are not in point. While it is true that certain expressions used in the opinions in those cases might appear to uphold the plaintiff’s

p. 684
contention, the vital difference between those cases and the present is., that here it is not alleged that defendant himself received or profited by any part of the sums said to have been paid out on his improper-audit. The cause of action for negligent audits is governed by Higgins v. Tefft, 4 App. Div. 63 , 38 N. Y. Supp. 716 , and O’Brien v. Fitzgerald, 6 App. Div. 509 , 39 N. Y. Supp. 707 . Nor have we presented here merely the case of an action for an accounting, which includes matters not properly the subject of an account. In such a. case the question of what the accounting should cover would be a. matter to be determined upon the settlement of the interlocutory judgment, and not a question to be raised by demurrer. As the plaintiff has, however, seen fit to distinctly and completely plead two-causes of action, the question of improper joinder is one which can be tested by a demurrer.

The judgment anpealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs and’ disbursements, with leave to plaintiff to amend its complaint within 20 days upon payment of costs in this court and the court below. All concur.

Cases cited