Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/308823573/Joinder-Under-Equity-Law
Timestamp: 2019-01-17 06:46:13
Document Index: 622042196

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 258', '§ 209', '§ 245', '§ 268', '§ 6', '§ 209', '§ 269', '§ 258', '§ 484', '§ 258', '§ 475', '§ 258', '§ 488', '§ 258', '§ 251']

Joinder Under Equity Law | Joinder | Equity (Law)
Williamson-Dickie Manufacturing Company v. Davis Manufacturing Company, Solomon Davis, Joseph R. Davis and David Davis, 251 F.2d 924, 3rd Cir. (1958)
Harold A. Hobson, Jr. v. Roy S. Fischbeck, I.R.S. District Counsel, Kenneth W. Gideon, I.R.S. Chief Counsel, and Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury, 758 F.2d 579, 11th Cir. (1985)
Some Aspects of Joinder of Causes
Edward Q. Carr
Edward Q. Carr, Some Aspects of Joinder of Causes, 5 Fordham L. Rev. 452 (1936).
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol5/iss3/6
v. Typical of this trend is the statutory system of joinder of parties and causes which is now in effect in New York State. R. the bill may also be maintained to prevent multiplicity. equity permitted the joinder of parties plaintiff or defendant where they had a common interest in the subject matter of the bill. . CIV. Delaware & Hudson Co. 213. While ordinarily the bill of peace has been used to enjoin the prosecution of numerous actions at law.' The early rule with respect to a t Associate Professor of Law. R. and the law plaintiffs becoming defendants in equity. H. 77 N. Boston & Maine R. Deyoe. by JURISPRUDENCE restraining numerous actions in equity.. N. In a recent case. Purely as a matter of pleading. (1935) § 258. 382. were in a proper case enjoined by a bill of peace from prosecuting their actions. E. Y. 1893). and the issues involved in the numerous law actions were tried and disposed of in a single equity suit. 212. 71 (Sup. 25 N. 1. the court intimates that prevention of multiplicity of suits alone is not sufficient. 592 (1858). School of Law. Weidenfeld. Schuyler. 1 PoMERoY. A favorite ground of equity jurisdiction has been the prevention of a multiplicity of suit. 4. New York & N. 637 (1871). R. Y. but there must be some other ground of equitable interference present. The bill of peace also functioned where a single plaintiff had threatened to sue or was actually suing different defendants in numerous actions at law. Numerous parties plaintiff who were threatening to sue or were actually suing the same defendant in different actions at law. Supervisors of Saratoga County v. 45 N. 171. 43. Supp. REV. Erie Ry. 211.2 A bill of peace combined the two-fold functions of a restraining order and an order of consolidation. 2. R. 197 N. AcT (1921) § 209. 321 (1935). 17 N. But further than this. Y. PRAC. In addition to the cases mentioned. Y. (1936) 5 FORDHAx L.SOME ASPECTS OF JOINDER OF CAUSES EDWARD Q. 1918) § 245. equity recognized the prevention of multiplicity of suit as an independent and substantive ground of equity jurisdiction and invented the remedy known as the bill of peace. 263 N. Fordham University. Y.2 Equity enjoined the bringing or the further prosecution of the numerous law actions. EQuITY (4th ed. v. the equity plaintiff being the prospective or actual defendant at law. The policy of modern statutes is to encourage joinder of causes. Ct. Y. Alleghany & K. R. the law defendants becoming plaintiffs in equity. 219 (1879). v. 5 Misc. v. a bill of peace was sometimes granted to restrain repeated actions by the same plaintiff against the same defendant. In some of its earlier opinions the New York Court of Appeals held that the prevention of a multiplicity of suits was in itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of equity even though no other element of equity jurisdiction was present. 3. and the law plaintiff becoming the defendant in the equity suit. CARRt CONTEMPORARY reforms in practice and procedure include the removal of many of the restrictions covering the joinder of -' causes of action in the complaint. however.' The system bears the strong imprint of equitable principles. the position of the parties again being reversed. Ramsey.
8. was repealed and a new Section 258 added. The so-called liberal rule governing bills of peace in equity has been woven into the statute governing the joinder of plaintiffs so that it covers both actions at law and actions in equity. provided that upon the application of any party the court may in its discretion direct a severance of the action or separate trials whenever required in the interestsof justice"Y The new statute is patterned after similar statutes and rules of practice in England"0 and New Jersey. Y. Rule 1. Cmv. but an insight into the motives behind its passage can 5. ACr. title or community of interest in the subject matter of the action existed among the numerous parties. Bossak v.1936] SOME ASPECTS OF JOINDER OF CAUSES 453 bill of peace was technical and narrow. Laws 1935. this requirement is to be read into these statutes. N. that there exist among the numerous individuals or between each of them and their common adversary a common right. Former Civil Practice Act Section 258. 538. 707. A community of interest in a common question of law or fact arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions. 709 (4th Dep't 1924). Id. 1 Po~maoy. a community of interest in the subject matter of the controversy. 11. is the test of joinder of plaintiffs. § 268. PRAc." The scope and effect of the statute will necessarily have to await the construction placed upon it by the courts. op. N. The plaintiff may unite in the same complaint two or more causes of action whether they are such as were formerly denominated legal or equitable. §§ 6 (2). . Div. 7. N. 203 N. National Surety Co. Supp. 339. Acr (1921) § 209. Y. English Practice Act. 205 App. or a common title from which all of the separate claims arose.Rurxs or PRAc. provided there was a common question of law or fact involved in the general controversy. 148 (Ist Dep't 1923).. 9. 1935. Manwaren. J. 6. in effect Sept. supra note 3.0 The New York statutes governing the joinder of parties and causes are remedial in character and have as their object the prevention of a multiplicity of suit. Y. in order for equity to exercise its jurisdiction. c. 11. 208 App.5 Gradually a more liberal view was adopted by Courts of Chancery and a bill of peace issued even though no common right. Order 18. Y. Joinder of Causes of Action. It was necessary. 21. J.8 During the year 1935 the legislature of the State of New York made an important change in the statute governing the joinder of causes of action. which reads as follows: "Section 258.PRAc. 1. Div. cit. § 269. 200 N.7 While the statutes governing the joinder of parties defendant do not in so many words state the requirement that there be a community of interest among the defendants in a common question of law or fact. Sherlock v. 10. Supp. N.
The plaintiff may unite in the same complaint two or more causes of action. that the causes joined must belong to one and the same subdivision of the Section was not imposed where the claims arose "out of the same transaction. or transactions connected with the same subject of action" as set forth in subdivision 9 of the statute. 11. with or without damages for the withholding thereof. For penalties incurred under the public health law. Upon claims arising out of the same transaction. 7. 5. 3. Therefore X could unite in the same complaint against Y a cause of action on contract and a cause of action in replevin. PRAc.FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. Upon claims against a trustee. For penalties incurred under the conservation law. subdivision 9 of the former Civil Practice Act Section 258 12. 4. the Section provided that the plaintiff might unite in the same complaint two or more causes of action. or regulating the practice or procedure therein.. AcT (1921) § 258 read as follows: "JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION. a cause of action on contract and a cause of action in replevin because they did not belong to one and the same subdivision of the Section. For injuries to real property. whether or not included within one or more of the other subdivisions of this section. that they are consistent with each other.1" The scheme of the statute classifying the different types of actions and segregating them into the different subdivisions seems to have rested on purely arbitrary grounds. where they are brought to recover as follows: 1. 8. express or implied. 5 be gathered by comparing it with its predecessor. 12. Former N. or by operation of law.. For libel or slander. or transactions connected with the same subject of action . 10. 6. with or without damages for the taking or detention thereof. provided they both arose "out of the same transaction. by virtue of a contract. Chattels. whether they are such as were formerly denominated legal or equitable. that they do not require different places of trial. Y. For penalties incurred under the agricultural law. A provision of statute authorizing a particular action. or transactions connected with the same subject of action. the former Civil Practice Act Section 258. shall not be construed to prevent the plaintiff from uniting in the same complaint two or more causes of action pursuant to this section". and it must appear upon the face of the complaint. provided they fell within one and the same subdivision of the Section and provided further that they were not inconsistent and did not require different places of trial. slander. . For injuries to personal property.. The requirement. criminal conversation or seduction. Civ. whether they be legal or equitable. Upon contract. Real property in ejectment. except libel." As compared to the arbitrary confinements of the other subdivisions of the Section. As previously constituted. or both. It must appear upon the face of the complaint that all the causes of action so united belong to one of the foregoing subdivisions of this section. 9. X could not unite in the same complaint against Y. For personal injuries. 2.
having to do with the joinder of causes of action. 117 App. transactions connected with the same subject of action' . Y." A case where there was a chance to avoid a possible multiplicity of suit by joinder of causes in the same complaint but where the opportunity had to be passed by. 14. Supp. But the use of the words "Upon claims arising out of the same transaction.1936] SOME ASPECTS OF JOINDER OF CAUSES 455 was undoubtedly intended by the legislature to be a concession towards liberality of joinder of causes of action..rmizs (3d ed." rendered the subdivision ill adapted to clear construction at the hands of the courts. in the latter it was said they did. PoaMMoY. 151. B could join causes of action for trespass and assault in the same complaint. v. 7. 592. 16. 60 App.. causes of action for assault and for slander could not be joined in the same complaint. § 484 were authority as to former N. Co. PRAc. H. 604). Div. 16. 14 yet if A trespassed upon B's land and while committing the trespass assaulted B. 952 (2d Dep't 1901). Y. Y. 102 N. CODE CIV. Pomeroy in his work on Code Remedies concluded that the words under discus. which phrase has been said by a distinguished judge to be 'well chosen . Doyle v. These two decisions construing N. . . Paul v. Ader v.. Referring to these identical words as used in Section 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure from which former Civil Practice Act Section 258 was derived. CODE Ri. E. Ford. AcT (1921) § 258 which was identical in language with the Code section. 525. Some of these decisions served only to increase confusion and doubt in the mind of the practitioner. PRoC. . Supp. 148 N." 13 The bulk of the decisions in the past. 17 N.. Typical of the narrow refinements and distinctions which arose in connection with Subdivision 9 are the following: If A assaulted B and while making the assault spoke defamatory words of B. because of the narrow construction placed on Subdivision 9 of Section 258. Y. involved the sale of a gun by A to B. can it be said that the causes of action are brought to recover 'upon claims arising out of . 69 N. 1893) § 475. . Y. Div. 15. 774 (1925). or transactions connected with the same subject of action . R. . Civ. 771. Y.R. in the interest of prevention of multiplicity of suit. because it is so obscure and so general as to justify the interpretations which shall be found most convenient and best calculated to promote the ends of justice'. in our iudgment. or transactions connected with the same subject of action". American Wringer Co. 11 for while in the former case it was held the claims did not arise "out of the same transaction. have related to the construction to be placed on the words "arising out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action" found in former Subdivision 9. (New York & N. 241 N. 13. Blau. 359 (Ist Dep't 1907). . Schuyler.con did not apply to actions at law but only to those in equity. the Court of Appeals with a touch of cynical humor said: "Neither.
Hill v. Y. McKane. Livermore. The purchaser of merchandise which proves defective may sue the vendor in the same action for breach of warranty and for negligence. 71 Misc. Supp. PRAc. Inconsistency between causes of action cannot exist unless they arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. 254. 986 (3d Dep't 1905). These limitations on joinder have been eliminated from the present statute. Supp. 1911). 11 The bewildering hodge-podge of decisions arising from the judicial construction of Subdivision 9 of Civil Practice Act Section 258 was largely instrumental in the repeal of the section and the adoption of the present Section 258 which appears to permit joinder of causes of action without restriction save for the discretionary power vested in the court to "direct a severance of the action or separate trials whenever required in the interests of justice. It is fair to assume in this first class of cases that the discretionary power of severance vested in the court by statute. It is essential to recognize that two distinct classes of cases will arise in which the question of joinder of causes will be governed by entirely different considerations. 101 App.FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 18. 8 or where in rare cases because of statutory provisions the 17. Former N. 581. 91 N. Ct. Act (1921) § 258 expressly required that the causes of action joined. he consistent and that different places of trial be not required. The joinder was held bad on the ground that the claim did not arise out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action. CIV. Joinder of causes is no longer limited to actions of certain types nor need there any longer be any inquiry as to whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action. Y. Yet if the statute is to perform satisfactorily it is not enough to say categorically that each case of joinder will be judged on its own merits and upon its own peculiar set of facts. . but it is conceivable that an application for a severance might still properly be made to the court on the ground of inconsistency or the necessity of a different venue for trial. It is in this class of cases that the reforms intended to be accomplished by the new statute will be fully felt. 819 (Sup. 128 N. The man who is assaulted by his neighbor and at the same time slandered may now sue for assault and slander in the same complaint. 5 B was injured by the explosion of the gun and in his complaint joined a cause of action for breach of warranty with a cause of action for negligence. Div. Y." To attempt to formulate rules governing the joinder of causes of action under a statute which in itself contains no words of limitation and which seemingly leaves the question entirely to the discretion of the court might appear both presumptuous and futile. will only find room for exercise where the objection is raised that the causes of action joined are inconsistent and therefor mutually exclusive. In the first class may be grouped actions brought by a single plaintiff against a single defendant in which a number of different causes of action have been combined in the complaint. Reed v.
Supp. Div. 538. BiSjoinder of causes at Common Law and under the New York Code of Civil Procedure =as ground of demurrer.. Co. Ry.' A second class of cases is composed of those in which controversies involving a number of plaintiffs or defendants have been assembled together in the same complaint. This discretionary power was controlled by the knowledge that not all causes of action could be joined in the bill. CODE CIv. Sherlock v. the bill had to result in a consolidation and simplification of the issues else its pur19. 20. 208 App. Mlanwaren. to compel service of an amended complaint. The granting of the remedy rested in the sound discretion of the Chancellor. Both parties and causes were joined in the bill under circumstances which would have been impossible in the courts of common law. Y. 682 (1924). It would be the equivalent of saying that the joinder of causes of action in all actions. The motion had to be noticed . Furthermore. On the other hand to adopt the second alternative is to recognize what has been the previously accepted rule.1936] SOME ASPECTS OF JOINDER OF CAUSES 457 causes joined require a different venue for trial or where finally the broad ground is urged that the joinder will confuse the issues and render a fair trial impossible. N. Rock Island and Pac. 238 N. With the advent of the Civil Practice Act and Rules of Civil Practice. 135 (1910). Paoc.. 709 (4th Dep't 1924). is subject to no further restriction than that of the reserved discretionary power vested in the court to sever causes of action in the interest of justice. To adopt the first alternative would be in effect to hold that the new statute governing joinder of causes of action had submerged and rendered obsolete the statutes relating to joinder of parties. 1921. A bill which prayed for relief against different defendants on independent and unrelated transactions was demurrable on the ground of multifariousness. might well be left to the good judgment of the trial court.20 Courts of equity animated by motives of practical expediency devised the remedy of a bill of peace to do away with a multiplicity of suit. 203 N. Y. Akely v. The problem has now become one both of joinder of parties and causes. Y. effective October 1st. 218 U. Kinnicutt. Obviously the question presents itself whether the propriety of joinder in the complaint is to be determined by the statute relating to joinder of causes of action standing alone or by this same statute read in the light of the kindred statutory provisions governing joinder of parties. 144 N. 466. E. By analogy it would seem that the objection that the joinder of causes vill prevent a proper trial of the issues. Herndon v. § 488 (7). S. Chicago.' There had to be at least a basic question of either law or fact common to all parties and causes embraced within the bill. 21. misjoinder ceased to exist as a ground of demurrer to the complaint and a new remedy was given to the defendant of making a corrective motion pursuant to Rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Practice. that the statutes relating to joinder of parties and causes are part of a flexible system and intended to be read together as a whole. whether by a single plaintiff against a single defendant or involving multiple plaintiffs or multiple defendants.
22. Those vague and mysterious words are no longer found in any statute. PRAc. supra. To justify joinder in multiple party actions. 5 pose failed of accomplishment. . Motion to correct pleading. Div. Otherwise hopeless confusion would ensue. 122 N. Supp. or if there be a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. Todaro v. 2 Modem statutory provisions liberalizing the joinder of parties and causes and permitting the consolidation of actions have it is true. Civ. join separate and independent causes of action in his complaint against A. The discretion vested in the court by statute to permit joinder of causes of action or to direct a severance is comparable with the discretion exercised by the Chancellor in granting a bill of peace. Somerville Realty Co. Lest it be said that the placing of restrictions on the joinder of causes of action in the complaint is out of harmony with the spirit of the new statute. The defendant under the broad provisions of N. 23. there must be present a common question of law or fact in the causes of action united. note 3. Yet the principles underlying the bill still serve as a guide. The words "or if causes of action be improperly united" previously appearing after the word "defendant" have been omitted. in construing the statutes and in solving ever recurring questions of joinder. Y. Rule 105 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Y. reads as follows: "RULE 102. 1936. let it be remembered that "the purpose of procedure is order. In cases involving multiple plaintiffs or defendants it seems proper to draw the conclusion that the sweeping provisions of Civil Practice Act Section 258 governing joinder of causes of action are intended to be supplemented and limited by the statutes governing joinder of parties. B. 1. If any matter contained in a pleading be so indefinite. the court may order the party to serve such amended pleading as the nature of the case requires". $09. It is not to be assumed that X as plaintiff may without restriction. cit. Acr (1935) § 258 may now move at any time during the pendency of the action for an order of severance. 138 App. The rule as amended and effective September 1st. The common question should arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions but no longer need it be "connected with the same subject of action". op. § 251%. 513 (2d Dep't 1910). and without order there cdn be no satisfactory or uniform enforcement of substantive law". C and D or that X. 1 PommaOR. uncertain or obscure that the precise meaning or application thereof is not apparent. 3 by the defendant within twenty days from the service of the complaint. supplanted to a large extent the bill of peace. 6. Misjoinder of causes of action has now been eliminated as a ground of motion under Rule 102. Y and Z as plaintiffs may unite in the same complaint separate and distinct causes of action against the defendant A.• FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. or a defect of parties plaintiff or defendant..
1935-1936. 1883. 1901. Harvard University. PANORAfA or WoRm's LEGAL.B. 1913-1917. LL. C. D. AGMID Decisions Editor JomrN T. D. A. New York Bar.B. 1934). MCMUflEN CLARMMCE NEULL'M FRAmcms A. Author of E%'MDECE (2d ed. Director of Rvuz HisTORIQUE DE Daorr FRAlA t s Ex rRAN'GER. S.. M. honorary member of the Canadian Bar Association. 1931 to date. 1930. 1936 NUIIBER 3 Subscription price. $2.. FLEMING Comment Editor ARmAN F. Paris. MEDInA. Georgetown University. REv. Facult6 de droit. College of Law. CRONAN Ro3ERT L. 1931. 1936.B. Lecturer in Law. WrGmon. S. A..NDERsON MILTON BROADMAN FRANK X. WnIrE. 756. Harvard UniverAty.D. REv. Bugbee (1936) 49 HAM. Paris. 1923).B. LL. A . SINE WALTm B. Professor of Law. Professor of Law. CnARis L. B. 1926. 1910. LL.B. Massachusetts. Justice of the City Court of New York. Author of JoN H. LL.. Harvard University. member of the House of Delegates of the Legal Profession. Brittany. 75 cents Edited by the Students of the Fordham Law School EDITORIAL BOARD BaRRAMa SASON.B. 1887. SysTEM (1928).. 1901-1929. LL. Catholic University of America. and numerous other articles. OLuVIn-AARrnr. KaNNE LESTER M. MIcCAN GEORGE M. 3. Rate and Measure in Jurisdictionto Tax-Afternath of Maxwdl v. Member of the President of the American Bar Association. Cathedral at Trguier.. Dean. Rxcz Business Manager EUGENE P. A. KRANz LEOPOLD J. DooHUE BmNARD GLASER ARTiruR GooD. Rxv. Professor of Law. Middlesex County. Catholic University of America. J. 1915. CoiumENmr oF HISTORY OF Fm. Author of LEGAL. L. 1923.cn LAw (2d ed... Columbia University..B. MAdmAxus Legislation Editor JoiN A.. New York Co inguros To T= IssUz WnmmA_ L. 1908. RANSom. 1920. 1934). 1933. CARMODY'S NEW YORK PRACTICE (Compact Edition. LowNDxs. Georgetown University. Woolworth Building. Co-author. 777. Author of The Passing of Situs-Jurisdictionto Tax Shares of Corporate Stock (1932) 45 Hazy. Facult6 de droit. Rector. B. Louis LAug. REv. numerous legal articles. 1893-1929.00 a year Single issue..FORDHAM LAW REVIEW Published in January.B. Editor-in-Chief WniLar J. KENNEDY Faculty Adviser Editorial and General Offices.. L. . 1913. EnwARD Q. May and November VOLUME V NOVEMBER.AN WALTER E. Author of Pnovosrsn AND NriscoUTY Or PArs (1922-1928). McLAUGHIN FAINE B1. O'Co EL Jomz R. Duke University. LL. LEWIS EDWARD J. 1921.. Cornell University. LPrrsno RALPH F. FmAsgois J.. Errxci OF AN-TE-NUrnAL PnozMnES and contributor to various law reviews. CAnn & Fm-'s NEW YORK CIrm PRAcTIc:E MANUAL (1936). SaArino PAUL J. T.B. Sciotaii NonA F. CARR. ROBERT J. and numerous other treatises and articles. Professor of Law. Former Assistant District Attorney. Rennes. A. Northwestern University. 1905.
Documents Similar To Joinder Under Equity Law