Case Name: Mary Croaley, Respondent, v. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Nicholas J. Schnepp, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-12-30
Citations: 141 A.D. 473
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mary Croaley, Respondent, v. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Nicholas J. Schnepp, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 473–475

Head Matter:
Mary Croaley, Respondent, v. Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Nicholas J. Schnepp, Defendant.
First Department,
December 30, 1910.
Pleading — complaint in action for negligence stating actions against persons not joint tort feasors.
A complaint in an action to recover for personal injuries which does not link the defendants together as joint tort feasors, but in substance alleges that the plaintiff was struck by two trucks owned by different persons, or that he was struck by one truck the owner of which is uncertain, combines separate and distinct causes of action, and a demurrer for duplicity should be sustained.
Appeal ■ by the defendant, the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 27th day of September, 1910, granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings urider section 547 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Exigene M. Hawkins, for the appellant.
. Edgar H. RosenstocJc, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
Appeal from order granting plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings which consist of a complaint and a demurrer for general insufficiency and for duplicity in that a separate and distinct cause of action against each of two defendants has been alleged. The complaint is a most curious document. It alleges that on a certain date the plaintiff was .standing upon the sidewalk at the-corner of Grand and Christie streets in the city of New York. It then alleges in numerous numbered paragraphs that the defendant Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company owned, operated and controlled a certain truck and the horses attached-thereto, and that the said horses and truck were in the possession of and under the control of the servant, agent or employee of said company who was then driving the same, and that said-company, its agent, sérvant or employee so carelessly drove and managed said horses and truck or vehicle that by reason of its negligence said, wagon struck the plaintiff with great .violence.- Intermingled with these allegations undertaking to state a cause of action against the Schwarzschild & Sulzberger Company, are precisely similar allegations respecting one Nicholas J. Schnep.p and undertaking to state a like cause of action against him. The motion appears to have-been granted upon the ground that the complaint alleges the joint negligence of both defendants, but we cannot so read it. There is no single allegation which serves to link the defendants together as joint tort feasors.It may be read as alleging that the plaintiff was struck by two trucks owned by different persons. Or what is more probable, the plaintiff was struck by only one truck, but is uncertain to whom it belongs. In either case the complaint improperly combines two separate and distinct causes of action.
The motion for judgment should have been denied. The order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred.
Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.