Case Name: PRESTAGE FARMS, INC., A Non-Resident Corporation; James E. Blissard, d/b/a J & J Blissard Farm; Bobby Brooks, d/b/a Bobby Brooks Swine; Richard Moore, d/b/a Richard Moore Swine Farm; Jerry Milner d/b/a Jerry Milner Swine; Gone Hogwild, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; Pig Palace, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; and Pigs to Hogs, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation, v. Jim NORMAN and Barbara Norman; Larry Bennett and Peggy Bennett; Chester Brassfield and Robbie Brassfield; Johnny Buford; W.C. Carnathan and Mable Carnathan; Gwen Chrestman; Ruby Chrestman; Amanda Cockrell; Joe Colbert and Patricia Colbert; Warren Colbert and Stacy Colbert; Senora Cousin and Olivia Cousin; Charles Funderburk and Carolyn Funderburk; Kenneth Hardin and Gloria Hardin; William E. Hill and Pam Hill; L.C. Holoman; Burrell Hooper; Tony Hooper and Regina Hooper; James Ivy; Bryan K. Jernigan; Ann L. Lucius; David Lucius; Billy King and Peggy Sue King; Tena McCarty; John A. McClendon, Jr. and Pamela McClendon; Barry Martin; Terry L. Martin; Thomas O. Martin and Ruth Martin; Wayne Earl Munlin and Dovie Munlin; Lenastra Murry; George R. Norman and Charlotte A. Norman; George Orr; Laura G. Parker; Jamison Peden and Laura Peden; Lucius Prewett and Margaret Prewett; Loy V. Reeves and Lavanda Reeves; Bobby G. Smith and Betty Jean Smith; Luther W. Terry; Ruthie J. Thomas; Hilda C. Thompson; Terry Tunnell and Angie Tunnell; Joyce B. Vance; Burell Whitt and Hazel Whitt; Danny Whitt; Jewel F. Harrison and Edith Harrison; and Jimmy L. Kirkwood and Gertrude L. Kirkwood
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2002-04-11
Citations: 813 So. 2d 732
Docket Number: No. 2000-IA-01307-SCT
Parties: PRESTAGE FARMS, INC., A Non-Resident Corporation; James E. Blissard, d/b/a J & J Blissard Farm; Bobby Brooks, d/b/a Bobby Brooks Swine; Richard Moore, d/b/a Richard Moore Swine Farm; Jerry Milner d/b/a Jerry Milner Swine; Gone Hogwild, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; Pig Palace, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; and Pigs to Hogs, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation, v. Jim NORMAN and Barbara Norman; Larry Bennett and Peggy Bennett; Chester Brassfield and Robbie Brassfield; Johnny Buford; W.C. Carnathan and Mable Carnathan; Gwen Chrestman; Ruby Chrestman; Amanda Cockrell; Joe Colbert and Patricia Colbert; Warren Colbert and Stacy Colbert; Senora Cousin and Olivia Cousin; Charles Funderburk and Carolyn Funderburk; Kenneth Hardin and Gloria Hardin; William E. Hill and Pam Hill; L.C. Holoman; Burrell Hooper; Tony Hooper and Regina Hooper; James Ivy; Bryan K. Jernigan; Ann L. Lucius; David Lucius; Billy King and Peggy Sue King; Tena McCarty; John A. McClendon, Jr. and Pamela McClendon; Barry Martin; Terry L. Martin; Thomas O. Martin and Ruth Martin; Wayne Earl Munlin and Dovie Munlin; Lenastra Murry; George R. Norman and Charlotte A. Norman; George Orr; Laura G. Parker; Jamison Peden and Laura Peden; Lucius Prewett and Margaret Prewett; Loy V. Reeves and Lavanda Reeves; Bobby G. Smith and Betty Jean Smith; Luther W. Terry; Ruthie J. Thomas; Hilda C. Thompson; Terry Tunnell and Angie Tunnell; Joyce B. Vance; Burell Whitt and Hazel Whitt; Danny Whitt; Jewel F. Harrison and Edith Harrison; and Jimmy L. Kirkwood and Gertrude L. Kirkwood.
Judges: PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. SMITH, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER AND COBB, JJ. CARLSON, J„ NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 813
Pages: 732–742

Head Matter:
PRESTAGE FARMS, INC., A Non-Resident Corporation; James E. Blissard, d/b/a J & J Blissard Farm; Bobby Brooks, d/b/a Bobby Brooks Swine; Richard Moore, d/b/a Richard Moore Swine Farm; Jerry Milner d/b/a Jerry Milner Swine; Gone Hogwild, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; Pig Palace, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation; and Pigs to Hogs, Inc., A Mississippi Corporation, v. Jim NORMAN and Barbara Norman; Larry Bennett and Peggy Bennett; Chester Brassfield and Robbie Brassfield; Johnny Buford; W.C. Carnathan and Mable Carnathan; Gwen Chrestman; Ruby Chrestman; Amanda Cockrell; Joe Colbert and Patricia Colbert; Warren Colbert and Stacy Colbert; Senora Cousin and Olivia Cousin; Charles Funderburk and Carolyn Funderburk; Kenneth Hardin and Gloria Hardin; William E. Hill and Pam Hill; L.C. Holoman; Burrell Hooper; Tony Hooper and Regina Hooper; James Ivy; Bryan K. Jernigan; Ann L. Lucius; David Lucius; Billy King and Peggy Sue King; Tena McCarty; John A. McClendon, Jr. and Pamela McClendon; Barry Martin; Terry L. Martin; Thomas O. Martin and Ruth Martin; Wayne Earl Munlin and Dovie Munlin; Lenastra Murry; George R. Norman and Charlotte A. Norman; George Orr; Laura G. Parker; Jamison Peden and Laura Peden; Lucius Prewett and Margaret Prewett; Loy V. Reeves and Lavanda Reeves; Bobby G. Smith and Betty Jean Smith; Luther W. Terry; Ruthie J. Thomas; Hilda C. Thompson; Terry Tunnell and Angie Tunnell; Joyce B. Vance; Burell Whitt and Hazel Whitt; Danny Whitt; Jewel F. Harrison and Edith Harrison; and Jimmy L. Kirkwood and Gertrude L. Kirkwood.
No. 2000-IA-01307-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 11, 2002.
John Ernest Wade, Jr., Trudy D. Fisher, Gaye Nell Lott Currie, Jackson, attorneys for appellants.
William H. Liston, Jr., Danny E. Cupit, Jackson, attorneys for appellees.

Opinion:
DIAZ, J.,
for the Court.
¶ 1. The plaintiffs filed their joint complaint and request for a bill of peace in the Chancery Court of Montgomery County, Mississippi, on January 4, 2000, against Prestage Farms, Inc. (Prestage), and seven of its contract hog growers (the defendant farmers) alleging (1) the creation, establishment, and maintenance of public nuisances consisting of nine large commercial hog confinement facilities containing hundreds of hogs for the purpose of feeding, growing, and raising hogs belonging to Prestage for sale by Prestage, (2) the creation of private nuisances, and (3) the intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief.
¶2. Each of the defendants filed separate answers to the complaint, all of which are substantially the same and all of which assert identical affirmative defenses incorporating common issues of fact and law.
¶ 3. On March 2, 2000, defendants filed a joint motion to sever parties under M.R.C.P. 21 raising the issue of joinder of plaintiffs and defendants under M.R.C.P. 20(a). After a hearing, the chancellor entered an order on June 27, 2000, denying the defendants' motion to sever.
¶4. On July 13, 2000, the defendants filed a motion for certification and interlocutory appeal and stay of trial court proceedings. The chancellor denied that motion on July 28, 2000. The defendants then filed their petition for interlocutory appeal and petition to stay proceedings with the clerk of this Court, which was granted on December 13, 2000.
¶ 5. The defendants raise the following issues on appeal:
I.WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE M.R.C.P. RULE 21 MOTION TO SEVER.
II. WHETHER USE OF AN EQUITABLE BILL OF PEACE FOR THE JOINDER OF PARTIES IS PROPER IN THIS CASE.
¶ 6. Plaintiffs raise the following issues on cross-appeal:
III. WHETHER INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
IV. WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS' RAISING OF THE ISSUE OF IMPROPER VENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND STRICKEN SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE LOWER COURT IN THE MOTION TO SEVER.
FACTS
¶7. Plaintiffs allege that Prestage designed, established, set up, and operated the seven farms at issue. After the establishment and construction of each facility, Prestage' provided hogs to each of its growers for the purpose of raising the hogs for marketing by Prestage. Prestage specified the facilities to be used, the manner of construction, and set the methods and procedures to be carried out by the growers in raising the hogs for market.
¶ 8. Each of the facilities contains one or more buildings or barns where large numbers of hogs are periodically brought by Prestage. The hogs are kept in constant confinement in these barns where they are fed specially mixed and formulated diets specified by Prestage, which permits their rapid and intense growth over a limited period of time until they become large enough for sale to a slaughter house. During their confinement, these hogs discharge vast amounts of bodily waste and excrement that falls through slats in the flooring of the hog barns into a holding area under the flooring. The buildings are aerated through large ventilation fans which draw the air out of the barns and into the open atmosphere while fresh air is pumped into the buildings. Periodically, the liquid and solid waste from the hogs is flushed or drained by gravity from under the barns through pipes to a nearby anaerobic open sewer lagoon where anaerobic bacteria living in the lagoon digest the solids in the waste, leaving liquid to be pumped out and sprayed into the open air and onto nearby fields, purportedly as fertilizer.
¶ 9. Plaintiffs assert that the creation, establishment and operation of each farm owned by Prestage and the defendant farmers constitutes public and private nuisances because the plaintiffs have suffered loss of their use and enjoyment of their property. The plaintiffs also allege that the actions of Prestage and the defendant farmers constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
I. WHETHER THE CHANCELLOR ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE M.R.C.P. RULE 21 MOTION TO SEVER.
¶ 10. The defendant farmers argue that plaintiffs in this case are improperly joined and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants' motion to sever. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court did not err and that its ruling falls under the exercise of sound discretion.
¶ 11. The standard of review applicable to a trial court's ruling based on the exercise of sound discretion is abuse of discretion. American Bankers Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 2001 WL 83952, at *4, — So.2d -, - (Miss.2001); Bobby Kitchens Inc., v. Mississippi Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So.2d 129, 135 (Miss.1989). When the standard of review is abuse of discretion, this Court must first determine if the court applied the correct legal standard and, if so, the trial court's determination will be affirmed unless it committed a clear error of judgment. Wood v. Biloxi Pub. Sch. Dist., 757 So,2d 190, 192 (Miss. 2000). When the question of abuse of discretion arises, this Court will not reverse the trial court unless it is shown that prejudice resulted to the complaining party by the ruling. Lamar Hardwood Co. v. Case, 143 Miss. 277, 107 So. 868, 871 (1926). Courts are given "broad discretion" to determine when and how claims are tried under M.R.C.P. 20 and 42. First Investors Corp. v. Rayner, 738 So.2d 228, 238 (Miss.1999). An appellate court cannot substitute its own view for the findings of a trial court regarding joinder. American Bankers, 2001 WL 83952, at *4 (citing Bobby Kitchens, Inc., 560 So.2d 129).
¶ 12. M.R.C.P. 20 provides that "[a]ll persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief . arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action_" As pointed out in American Bankers, 2001 WL 83952, at *2 the official comment to Rule 20 defines its intent as:
The general philosophy of the joinder provisions of these Rules is to allow virtually unlimited joinder at the pleading stage but to give the Court discretion to shape the trial to the necessities of the particular case.
M.R.C.P. 20 cmt.
¶ 13. Here, the plaintiffs' claims arise out of an alleged private nuisance. A private nuisance is an interference with the use and enjoyment of land. Leaf Riv er Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So.2d 648, 662 (Miss.1995). The defendant farmers argue that Lambert v. Matthews, 757 So.2d 1066 (Miss.Ct.App.2000), is dis-positive of this issue. Lambert quotes Alfred Jacobshagen Co. v. Dockery, 243 Miss. 511, 517, 139 So.2d 632, 634 (1962) as follows: "Each [nuisance] case must be decided upon its own peculiar facts, taking into consideration the location and the surrounding circumstances." Lambert, 757 So.2d at 1069. Joinder was not the issue before the Court in either Lambert or Jacobshagen and is not considered by this Court to be precedent as to the issue of joinder. We must next discuss whether the requirements of Rule 20 have been met in this case.
A. Same transaction or occurrence.
¶ 14. The defendants cite Demboski v. CSX Transp. Inc., 157 F.R.D. 28 (S.D.Miss.1994) in support of their assertion that plaintiffs' claims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence. In Demboski, the court held that three wrongful death claims and one personal injury claim arising out of four separate crossing accidents could not be joined. However, the court opined as follows, "[i]n ascertaining whether a particular factual situation constitutes a single transaction or occurrence for purposes of Rule 20, a case by case approach is generally pursued." Id. at 28 citing Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir.1974). The Demboski court further reasoned that
Although the Plaintiffs cite several cases wherein courts have found plaintiffs' rights to relief arose from one transaction or occurrence or a series of transactions or occurrences, this Court finds that the cases relied upon by the Plaintiffs differ from the case at hand. Most of the cases cited by the Plaintiffs involved allegations of discrimination and misrepresentations where the facts alleged by each plaintiff were inextricably interwoven together to show a common pattern of discrimination or misrepresentation.
Id. at 29.
¶ 15. Relying upon Demboski, we must review this case on its own facts. In doing so, we find that there is a common pattern of behavior among the various defendants which satisfies the requirements of Rule 20.
¶ 16. Our finding is strengthened by American Bankers, 2001 WL 83952. In that case, approximately 1371 borrowers brought action against a secured lender and collateral protection insurer to recover for overcharging premiums in connection with a scheme to defraud the borrowers. This Court held that joinder was proper under Rule 20, finding that the plaintiffs' claims arose "out of the same pattern of conduct, the same type of insurance, and involve interpretation of the same master policy." Id. at *5.
¶ 17. Plaintiffs in this case allege that Prestage Farms, acting in concert with each of its contract growers, established and operated identical public and private nuisances which caused harm to each plaintiff and their property. We find that this case involves essentially the same situation as the American Bankers case and that the plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences.
B. Common questions of law or fact.
¶ 18. Due to the fact that Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 also requires plaintiffs' claims to arise out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences and contains common questions of law or fact, American Bankers analyzed the liberal approach the federal courts use to determine if joinder is proper.
. under the federal rule, if the transaction and occurrence test cannot be met, there is always a possibility that the cases can be consolidated solely on the existence of common issues. When reviewing common questions of law or fact, the existence of only a single common issue of law, or a single common issue of fact will support joinder.
American Bankers, 2001 WL 83952, at *4 (Citing 7 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2nd § 1653 (1986)).
¶ 19. In American Bankers, the defendants argued that because the plaintiffs' claims related to more than 1,371 independent loan transactions, each claim involved facts and circumstances unique to each plaintiff. But this Court noted that the cases contained at least twenty-two common issues of fact and law which applied to "each and every plaintiff." Id. at *5. Here, the defendants assert nineteen of the same defenses and the plaintiffs all present the same issues of fact. There is no question that common questions of law and fact are present in this case.
¶ 20. Lastly, the defendants argue that they will be prejudiced by the joinder of the various plaintiffs and rely on Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 849 F.Supp. 785, 791 (N.D.Ga.1994) and Greene v. Mobil Oil Corp., 188 F.R.D. 430 (E.D.Tex.1999) (holding that joinder of many plaintiffs with differing types and amounts of damages would prejudice the defendants in the eyes of the jury). The defendants in American Bankers also relied on Grayson. In rejecting defendants' arguments, this Court stated,
In Grayson, eleven plaintiffs filed an age discrimination suit against their employer. Grayson v. K-Mart Corp., 849 F.Supp. 785, 791 (N.D.Ga.1994). A joint trial of plaintiffs' claims would have involved eleven different factual situations, eleven sets of work histories, eleven sets of witnesses and testimony, and the laws of four different states. Id. at 791. The case at bar stands in stark contrast to the factual situations in Grayson. Here, each plaintiff has alleged the very same claims involving the same insurance policies. As such, the prejudice and confusion contemplated by the defendant is not sufficient to warrant separate trials. At the very least, any prejudice or confusion can be remedied by a carefully drafted jury instruction.
American Bankers, 2001 WL 83952, at *4. Plaintiffs in this case have also alleged the same claims involving the same pattern of conduct of Prestage and its contract growers. As this Court found in American Bankers, we again hold that joinder under Rule 20 is proper.
¶ 21. In sum, we find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion or make a clear error of judgment in denying the defendants motion to sever because plaintiffs' claims involve many common questions of law and fact and arise out of the same series of occurrences or transactions. Furthermore, whether or not we think the better choice would be to sever the trials is irrelevant because we cannot substitute our own findings for that of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion.
II. WHETHER USE OF AN EQUITABLE BILL OF PEACE FOR THE JOINDER OF PARTIES IS PROPER IN THIS CASE.
¶ 22. On direct appeal, the defendants argue that the use of a bill of peace is improper in this case. Plaintiffs defend the use of a bill of peace by arguing that it is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of suits citing Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc., v. Deakle, 661 So.2d 188, 192-93 (Miss.1995) in support of their argument.
¶23. In Deakle, several defendants sought a bill of peace to consolidate all of the cases filed against them for the purposes of case management and injunction of further prosecution. The defendants had been sued by 7,000 plaintiffs in separate suits claiming damages arising from pollution of the Leaf River.
¶ 24. The defendants argue that a bill of peace cannot be used where there are both multiple defendants and multiple plaintiffs. Deakle clearly contradicts this argument, "The object of a bill of peace is to obtain protection of equity against the necessity for maintaining or defending numerous actions at common law in order to protect the interests of the parties, where claims of more than one party on at least one side were involved." Id. at 192 citing Henry J. McClintock, McClintock on Equity § 176, at 480 (2d ed.1948).
¶ 25. This Court, in Deakle, found that a bill of peace was not proper for procedural reasons, but opined that a bill of peace may be proper in a suit involving a "community of interest" between the parties or common questions of law or fact, the decision of which would, in large part, determine many of the actions. Id at 193. Deakle further stated that "Where codes or rules of practice, such as the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, provide an adequate remedy, a bill of peace to allow an injunction against numerous actions should be denied." Id. at 193. The Court then found that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure did not provide a remedy for defendant's "dilemma" because Mississippi does not provide for class actions, so the bill of peace would have been proper. Id. at 193.
¶ 26. We are facing a very similar situation in this case. As stated by the chancellor in his ruling on the motion to sever:
[Tjhis is a contractual arrangement, in effect, one person or one entity owning it, determining — the word "dictating" may be a little harsh, but, really, it's more appropriate — dictating what's done, and, even, handling it; and what's not handled by them is under their supervision and control; it's, in effect, as if everybody is one, and that one is Pres-tage.
¶ 27. As we essentially hold under the previous issue, we now hold that a bill of peace is proper in this case because a "community of interest" is present in this case.
III. WHETHER INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN THIS CASE WAS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
¶ 28. On cross appeal, plaintiffs argue that Prestage's interlocutory appeal was improperly granted, that the appeal should be dismissed, the stay of proceedings lifted, and this cause remanded to the chancery court for a trial on the merits.
¶ 29. Plaintiffs have two bases for their argument. One is that American Bankers is dispositive of the issue the defendants raise on appeal. The other basis is that a motion to sever under M.R.C.P. 21 is within the sound discretion of the trial court and cannot be the basis for an interlocutory appeal.
a. American Bankers
¶ 30. While we do find that this case is similar to American Bankers and that joinder is proper under Rule 20, it cannot be said that American Bankers is disposi-tive of the issue. A discussion of the merits of the appeal is necessary.
b. Standard of review of decisions denying motions for severance.
¶ 31. The plaintiffs also argue that a motion to sever under M.R.A.P. 21 is within the sound discretion of the trial court and cannot be the basis for an interlocu tory appeal. M.R.A.P. 5(a) requires that petitioner show that a substantial basis exists for a difference of opinion on a question of law in order to obtain an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs argue that this interlocutory appeal does not meet that threshold requirement and that issues involving the discretion of the trial court are not appropriate for interlocutory appeal. American Elec. v. Singarayar, 530 So.2d 1319,1322 (Miss.1988).
¶ 32. • In response, the defendants argue that while the Court in Singarayar did acknowledge that matters involving discretion of the lower court are less likely to be granted appellate review, the Court did not hold that such discretionary matters are not appealable. Singarayar, 530 So.2d at 1322.
¶ 33. This Court previously considered and rejected plaintiffs' argument when plaintiffs filed a response to the petition for interlocutory appeal objecting to the appeal. We again find this argument to be without merit.
IV. WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS' RAISING OF THE ISSUE OF IMPROPER VENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND STRICKEN SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE LOWER COURT IN THE MOTION TO SEVER.
¶ 34. The defendants argue that in the event that this Court severs the plaintiffs' actions, venue in Montgomery County would only be proper as to four of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants. This is due to the fact that only one of the eight defendants in this action has property located in Montgomery County and he is only being sued by four plaintiffs. The defendants ask that, if this Court should decide to sever the actions, the rules of venue be applied.
¶35. In response, the plaintiffs argue that the issue of venue is procedurally barred because it is being introduced for the first time on appeal.
¶ 36. We find that this issue is moot due to the fact that we are affirming the chancellor's decision to deny defendants' motion to sever.
CONCLUSION
¶ 37. Plaintiffs' claims are properly joined under Rule 20, and, for the same reasons, a bill of peace is also proper in this case. Interlocutory appeal was not improvidently granted, and the issue of whether venue would be proper if the motion to sever were granted is moot. Therefore, the order of the Montgomery County Chancery Court denying the defendants' Motion to Sever is affirmed, and this case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
¶ 38. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
PITTMAN, C.J., McRAE, P.J., EASLEY AND GRAVES, JJ., CONCUR. SMITH, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER AND COBB, JJ. CARLSON, J" NOT PARTICIPATING.