Case Name: Corry, Respondent, vs. Brown and others, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1906-01-30
Citations: 127 Wis. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: Corry, Respondent, vs. Brown and others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 140–142

Head Matter:
Corry, Respondent, vs. Brown and others, Appellants.
January 11
January 30, 1906.
Joinder of causes of action: Statutes.
•Sec. 1199, Stats. 1898, prescribing tbe elements of a complaint in an action to bar former owners of lands on wbicb tbe plaintiff bolds tax deeds, concludes, “And if sucb plaintiff bave more tban one sucb deed upon any parcel of land mentioned in sucb complaint, upon wbicb be might bring sucb action, be shall set forth in sucb complaint a copy of each sucb deed, but as a separate cause of action.” Held, that sucb section constitutes an exception to tbe requirements of sec. 2647, providing that each of several causes-of action, in order to be united, must affect all tbe parties to tbe action.
Appear from an order of tbe circuit court for Ashland •county: Jorrar K. Parish, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
Appeal from order overruling a demurrer on the ground that several causes of action are improperly united. The complaint is bought under sec. 1197, Stats. 1898, to bar former •owners of land to which plaintiff holds tax deeds dated July 28, 1894, and sets forth two causes of action: The first upon lot No. 3 of section 30, to which A. H. Brown and Clara A. Brown are the only persons named as adverse claimants. The ■second cause of action is upon a tax deed of the same date as the former, but for the next year’s t&xes, and covers lot 3 of ■section 30 aforesaid, and also part of lot 3 in section 20 of the same town and range. All the defendants, including said Brown,, are alleged to be claimants of interests in said lands in section 20.
The cause was submitted for the appellants on the brief of Tomlcins, Tomldns & Garvm, and for the respondent on that of Sanborn, Lamoreux & Pray.

Opinion:
Dodge, J.
Sec. 1199, Stats. 1898, prescribing tbe elements' of a complaint in sncb an action as tbis, concludes with tbe following:
"And if sucb plaintiff bave more than one sucb déed upon any parcel of land mentioned in sncb complaint, upon wbicb be might bring sucb action, be shall set forth in sucb complaint a copy of each sucb deed, but as a separate cause of' action."
Tbis statute seems not only to permit but to require that all tax deeds held by tbe same owner upon any land in wbicb be seeks to bar original owners shall be included in bis complaint and made separate causes of action. Tbis, doubtless, to tbe end that tbe court may bave before it in tbe one litigation all tax-title rights which be claims against tbe specified, land, so as to avoid tbe necessity of several lawsuits to accomplish tbe same ultimate result, namely, tbe establishment of' good title in plaintiff against all former owners and their assigns. • It is obvious that, when several parcels of land are included in one deed, they may, and in ordinary cases will, be' owned by different persons, all of whom are manifestly authorized to be joined as parties defendant, although they may not all be interested alike in tbe relief demanded. Tbe addition as a separate cause of action of tbe so-called foreclosure of another tax deed against any one of sucb parcels of land: involves no additional parties, for all tbe owners of sucb parcel are necessarily made defendants in tbe first instance. Hence, to accomplish a very legitimate purpose, tbe legislature has authorized, in tbe case of perfecting tax titles by these proceedings to bar former owners, an exception to tbe requirement of sec. 2641, Stats. 1898, that each of several causes of action, in order to be united, must affect all tbe parties to tbe action. We bave noticed tbe statement of the revisers of 1878 that sec. 1199, R. S. 1878, wherein.tbe above-quoted clause appears for tbe first time, is only a rewriting, of tbe pre-existing statute law. Sucb statement cannot, however, refute tbe fact tbat tbe provision in question was absolutely new and bad nothing in former statutes as a prototype or equivalent. Tbe words enacted by tbe legislature are too clear and unambiguous to be open to construction or to per(mit their nullification by reference even to the revisers' notes. Appellant relies upon Turner v. Duchman, 23 Wis. 500; but tbat case was decided before tbe above-quoted clause was -added to sec. 1199, Stats. 1898, and therefore before there was any exception to tbe requirement of sec. 2647, Stats. 1898, tbat each cause of action must affect all tbe parties. 'The rule of tbat case has been changed by tbe adoption of sec. 1199, R. S. 1878. Tbe present complaint is authorized by .such change, and tbe demurrer was properly overruled.
By the Court. — -Order affirmed.