Majority
Headnote
Pleadings—Demurrer—Misjoinder.By the terms of the Code, § 484, it is indispensible to the union of several causes of action in the same complaint g first, that they be of a certain class; secondly, that they be consistent with each other; thirdly, that they affect all the parties; and fourthly, that they do not require different places of trial. Consisting only of a single count, still the complaint contains the elements of four different causes of action; two against Golden-berg and the Larkins, and two against Hatton. The causes of action against Goldenberg and the Larkins are: first, that having a license to enter upon plaintiffs’ premises, these defendants neglected duly to shore-up and protect them, and secondly, that, having no license, they wrongfully and unlawfully entered upon the premises. The causes of action against Hatton are: first, that he wrongfully refused a license to the other defendants, and secondly, that he prevented the other defendants from shoring-up and protecting the premises. Conceding, for argument, that these four causes of action comply with the other requirements of the Code in order to their union in a single complaint, it is manifest that each does not affect all the defendants. For instance: the cause of action against Goldenberg and the Larkins for an unlawful entry upon the premises, was not the legal effect of Hatton's refusal of a license, but their own voluntary and independent tort. Hat-ton’s refusal of a license, so far from an invitation was a prohibition of an entry. For this trespass, therefore, Hatton is plainly not responsible. So, Hatton’s refusal of a license was his own individual act, with which it is not suggested in the complaint that the other defendants had any connection or privity; the contrary, rather, hence, the other defendants are plainly irresponsible for Hatton’s wrong in refusing the license. Again, Hatton’s hindrance of the other defendants in protecting the premises, was, by the very terms of the proposition, against their will; was a wrong in which they did not concur and to which they did hot assent;
Judgment reversed and demurrer sustained with costs.- Leave to plaintiff to amend or sever, without costs.
Daly, 0. J., and Bischoff, J., concur.
Cases cited
- Nichols v. Drew 94 N. Y. 22 p. 698
- Chipman v. Palmer 77 N. Y. 51 p. 698
- Van Steenburgh v. Tobias 17 Wend. 562 p. 698