Case ID: ri_25/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter S. Cole, Admr., vs. Charles Warren Lippitt et als.
    
    PROVIDENCE
    APRIL 15, 1903.
    Present: Stiness, C. J., Tillinghast and Blodgett, JJ.
    (1) Negligence. Joinder of Causes of Action. Misjoinder of Parties.
    
    In an action of trespass on the case, charging a joint invitation by three defendants, where the evidence tended to establish three different cases against the three defendants for three different causes of action, the case is one of misjoinder of causes of action rather than one of misjoinder of defendants in the same cause of action, since neither the tort, negligence, or liability of each defendant is the same.
    Trespass on the Case for negligence.
    Heard on petition of plaintiff for new trial, and petition'denied.
   Per Curiam.

When this case was last before the court, in 23 R. I. .542, we said: “The declaration charges a joint invitation. Such an invitation must be proved in.order to recover against the defendants jointly.” But the record shows that the evidence offered at the trial tended to establish not a joint liability of the defendants, but rather, as was said by the court when the case w.as before us in 22 R. I. 31: “ Three different cases against three different defendants for three different causes of action.” The case is therefore one of misjoinder of causes of action rather than one of misjoinder of defendants in the same cause of action, since neither is the tort of each defendant the same, nor is the negligence or the liability of each defendant the same. These questions have been so fully discussed in the opinions heretofore given that we think it is not necessary to again enlarge upon them. And see, also, the recent case of Wiest v. Traction Co., 200 Pa. St. 148.

Irving Champlin and'James Harris, for plaintiff.

Arnold Green, Edwards & Angelí, and Walter B. Vincent, for defendants.

It follows that the nonsuit was properly granted, and that the petition for a new trial is denied.