Case Name: JAMES S. BOWLES, Appellant, v. THE SACRAMENTO TURNPIKE AND PLANK ROAD COMPANY, Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1855
Citations: 5 Cal. 224
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES S. BOWLES, Appellant, v. THE SACRAMENTO TURNPIKE AND PLANK ROAD COMPANY, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 224–225

Head Matter:
JAMES S. BOWLES, Appellant, v. THE SACRAMENTO TURNPIKE AND PLANK ROAD COMPANY, Respondents.
A claim tor the possession of real property, with damages for its detention, cannot he joined in the same complaint under any system of pleading with a claim for consequential damages arising from a change of a road, by which a tavern-keeper may have been injured in his business.
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.
The facts material to the points decided appear in the opinion of the Court.
Ralston & Wallace, for Appellant, in support of the appeal, cited: 1 Ch. on Pl., 226, 7 Blackf., 601. 1 Cush., 123. Bouv. L, Dic., title Mispleader. 9 How. Pr. R., 123, 231, 375, 476.
J. Neely Johnson, for Respondents.
. The demurrer was well taken. Smith v. Hallock, 8 How. Pr. R., 73. Getty v. Hudson River R. R. Co., Ib., 117. 4 How. Pr. R., 226.
The statute authorises several causes to be united in the same action, but each cause must be separately stated. Each must be stated separately, distinctly, and specifically, as if in different complaints. There should be only one cause of action in each count of the complaint. The object of the statute was to prevent the multiplicity of suits, and the plaintiff is still bound by the rules of pleading recognised by the Courts of common law, which require him to state iu distinct terms the damage he claims for each trespass upon his rights. Benedict v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. R, 298.
The complaint is at variance with § 64, Prac. Act.

Opinion:
Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Murray, C. J., concurred.
This cause comes up upon final judgment rendered upon demurrer. The complaint is too loosely drawn, and embraces entirely too much, even for onr liberal system of practice.
A claim for the possession ef real property, with damages for its detention, cannot be joined iu the same complaint, under any system of pleading, with a claim for consequential damages arising from a change of a road by which a tavern-keeper may have been injured in his business.
The damages in the ene case arise out of the use ef land claimed by the plaintiffs^ the damages in the ether case would arise from an unauthorized diversion ef a public road, by means of which the plaintiff) •suffered a loss of his usual business and profits. It will not be necessary te decide whether, under the laws of this State, an individual can sue for consequential damages, arising to him iu the loss of his usual profits by the unauthorised obstruction or diversion of a public road. A party thus guilty can immediately be prosecuted under the criminal law.
The judgment upon the demurrer must be affirmed, with costs.