Case ID: ohio-cir-dec_10/html/0817-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Swing, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MISJOINDER OF CAUSES.
    [Hamilton Circuit Court,
    1899.]
    Smith., Swing, and Giften, JJ.
    State ex rel. v. Cincinnati & Hamilton Turnpike Co. et al.
    Joint Action to Oust Two Corporations From Their Franchises is Improper.
    A joint action to oust a turnpike company and an electric railway company from their franchises (the turnpike company having entered into a contract with the railway company permitting the construction of an electric railway along the turnpike, destroying part of its usefulness for vehicular traffic and converting it into a way over which freight is transported in freight cars such as are used on steam railroads) cannot be maintained, for the reason that separate causes of action against several defendants are improperly joined.
    Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county.
    This is a proceeding to oust the defendants, the Turnpike Company and the Cincinnati & Hamilton Electric Street Railway Co., from their franchises, the turnpike company having entered into a contract with the street railway company, whereby the latter, for the sum of $10,-ooo, has been permitted to construct an electric railway line along its co-defendant’s pike, destroying in part the usefulness of said, pike for vehicular traffic, and converting it into a way over which freight is transported in such freight cars as are used on steam railroads.
    H. R. Probasco, for relator.
    Eollett & Kelley, contra.
    
   Swing, J.

We are of the opinion that separate causes of action against several defendants are improperly joined in this petition, and a demurrer on the ground will be sustained to the petition.

During the argument it was said such a demurrer would be filed, and if the same has not been done it may be filed as of that date.

It is quite evident that there can be no joint action of this kind against these two defendants.

This holding makes it unnecessary to express any opinion upon the questions argued. Although it may be stated that this court, we think, fully passed on these questions in the cases decided at the last term of this court in Butler county.