Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-10-01
OPINION.


Rice. Ho,ace Thompson and John s. Keane-
Hy, Jesse P. Farley and John s. Barnes, .4pzz
pelzants.
1t appears from the complaint that the plain
tilt is railroad corporation, created and or
gained under the laws of this State, and in
vested with the usual franchises pertaining to
such a corporation in respect to certain lines of
railroad particularly described in the COM
plant, and extending through Diff
ferent counties and portions Of
the State That at the time when the griey-
anees complained of occurred it owned and was
IN the actual and lawful possession of its said
several lines OF railroad, together with the ap-
purtenances thereto belonging, and the rolling
stock equipment, including tools, implements,
fuel and material mentioned in said complaint
and then held for use in connection Herewith
and for operating and repairing the same, and
that it was then engaged in operating the same,
and was In the enjoyment of the tolls and in
come received and derived therefrom, of which
1T then had on hand in its treasury the sum of
Sl57. 6l5.04. That being SO in TIE possession
and use OF such corporate property as corpora
ton owner, the defendants, on the 9th
day of October, 1876, by reason of GER
tain wrongful aNs by them then done,
..AN ~ "aASA eiiSy dli pdIClClpdltO
dlspossessed the plaintiff and thereupon took
from it and appropriated to their own use said
money and other property and began operating
and thence continued to operate the said lines
of road and to collect and receive the tolls and
income thereof for their own use and benefit.
That they still continue to withhold this prop
erty IRON the plaintiff and refuse to deliver I'D
the same or any part thereof although REQUEST
ed SO to do. 1t is also alleged that said lines
OF road with their equipment and appurtenan-
ces are becoming greatly deprecated in value
by the use of the defendants and for want of
proper management and repairs and that if al
lowed longer to remain in their
possession and control the same will
become materially injured and impaired,
and the tolls and income thereof will be lost
to the plaintiff. The relief prayed for is a
judgment.
flrst-Ihau defendants surrender and deliver
up to the plaintiff the said lines of railroad
with all and singular the equipments and ap-
purtenances and other the said property per
tanning thereto.
Second-That they pay to the said plaintiff
the said sum of 1857 ,6lssO4 with interest from
the time OF the conversion thereof.
Ihlrd-Ihat they account to the plaintiff for
all tolls and income of the said lines of rail-
road received by them in the operation thereof,
and pay them the balance after deducting the
necessary expenses In maintaining and operat-
Ing the same.
Fourth-that receiver be appointed to take
charge OF the property pending the action; and
flfth-For such further or other relief or
both, as the nature of the case requires, or as
shall be agreeable to equity and good con-
science.
That the plaintiff is legally entitled
upon the facts stated to the specific relief
prayed for in the first and second specifica-
tons admits of no question, and the objection
or hat bnn >1,,, 4
not state sufficient facts to constitute cause
OF action, was therefore properly overruled.
70 sustain an objection of this kind the pleading
must be so wholly defective in its statements
OF tact as to present no cause of action
whatever emitting the party taking it to any
portion of the relief which he claims
The fact that he claims more than he is entitled
to or that he joins with rightful legal claim a
demand or equitable relief to which he has n,
night, IS not d defect which can be taken advan
tage of underan objection of this character.
Conelly VS.. Davidson, 10 Mimi, 1892.
Conner VS.. BID. of Ed, st. Anthony 10 Mimi
439.
Lockwood VS.. Bigelow, II Mimi, 113.
Metzner VS.. Baldwin ct al, II Mimi, 49,
The remaining question to be considered re-
lates to the objection that several causes of
action have been improperly united withou,
considering or determining the point raised b,
the respondent that defect in PLEADING
OF this character cannot be reached by a gen
eral demurrer, and fails to point out specifical
~ the distinct causes of action which ar,
claimed to be thus improperly united We ar,
of the opinion that there is no such misioinde
OF causes OF action In this case as renders thu
pleading defective on that account
The distinction which formerly existed be
tween actlons at law and suits in equity, anC
the forms of all such actions and suits hay
been abolished and there now remains but on
fnr RIM nf nofr E.
zion OF private rights, and the redress of pr
vate wrongs, which is denomlnated a civil &C
ton. (Gen. Stat, chap. &c, sec. ~
The form of proceedings in every such actio,
and the rules by which the sufficiency of plead
lngs thereon are to be tested, are matters O
statutory regulation Gen. Stat, chap. &c, sec
ny. The same court possesses both law ant
equity Jurisdiction and hence is competent t
take cognlzance alike of legal and equitable
rights and to administer legal remedies O
grant equitable relief or do both. according a
the nature OF the case may require, and as ma,
be permitted by the statute. And it is ex
pressly provided that several causes of action
whether legal or equitable, may b.
united in the same complaint wheneve
they are all included in the sam
prosecution or transactions connected with tn
subject OF action provided they affect all tn
parties to the action and do not require differ
ent places of trial (Gen. Stat. chant. GIG. Sec
%. In Montgomery VS.. McEwen, MINI
ool, TINS court IN constituting this provision say
we think the language here used was intend
ed to allow the plaintiff to litigate every thine
arising out of the same transaction or transac
TONS connected with The same subject of ac
ton IN one suit, and that whether the reIie
sought may be partly legal and partly eauita
ble or wholly of the nature of one ,r the 9th
ers; and 1T was there held that cause of ac
ton for the recovery of the amount due on ;
note note given by the defendant to the plaintiff
thereln was properly joined in the
same complaint with an equitable
claim by the latter for the delivering up anC
cancellation of a note and mortgage given by
MIN TO the former lnasmuch as both causes OF
action originated in and constituted parts of one
entire transaction and it was also held in an
sWer to an objection that neither of these caus
es OF action taken separately was sufficiently
stated to entltle recovery by the plaintiff that
this was not defect fatal to the sufficiency of
the complaint, provided 1T contained such q
statement OF facts comprising the whole trans
action as taken together as a whole, showed the
plaintiff entitled to both kinds of relief sought
The doctrine of this early case which was de
clded In 1862, has never since been questioned
ana 1t is too late now to disturb or unsettle the
rule OF practice which it established if we fel,
SO disposed.
The decision of that case however, seems t.
us to be in entire harmony with the genera
spirit, purposes and objects of our code system
OF practice, and especially with the NANTES,
design of the particular provision under con.
slderation, which was undoubtedly to avoid ;
multiplicity Of suits by enabling parties t.
settle and determine in one action. under the
limitations prescribed by the statute, al
matters of difference between them arisine
out OF and relating to the same transaction
and so connected with it as to constitute but
separate parts of the same. The present case
falls clearly within both the letter and the
spirit of the statute. The different matters of
TACT stated and embraced in the complaint as
the foundation Of plaintiffs action all have
reference to and the same
transaction OF which the severally form parts.
They all occurred between the same parties
plaintiff and defendants.