Wilson v. Wilson

Bowie, C. J., delivered'the opinion of this Court: This appeal is taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore city, sitting in equity, overruling the demurrer of the appellant to the hill of the appellees, for multifariousness. The hill prays that the administrators, Catha-rine and Alexander Wilson, may he compelled to account for the whole personal estate of their intestate; for a decree annulling and sotting aside the decree and sale under which Alexander Wilson claims the lands of the deceased intestate; and that subpoenas may issue to the Sheriff of Baltimore city for the said Catharine Ann, and to the Sheriff of Cecil for the said Alexander, and for general relief. To this hill the appellant demurred for multifariousness, in that the complainants have united in the same hill two entirely distinct and separate matters; the one, wherein he is, with the said Catharine A. Wilson, called upon to settle their administration accounts, which were in the Orphans’ Court of Cecil county, and the other, wherein the demurrant is sued for certain transactions respecting real estate, with which the said Catharine is not alleged to have any connection. The learned judge who decided this case below, after referring to several authorities, showing the vagueness and uncertainty of the rules defining multifariousness in equity, and the difficulty of applying them, roaches the conclusion: “ That there cannot he a doubt that if a party thinks proper to combine separate and distinct transactions and matters, ¹⁷⁰ all designed to carry out a scheme of fraud, that he can he called to answer to them all in one hill, however complicated they may he/’ And adds: “But the complainants not only call upon these defendants to answer in regard to the •alleged fraudulent administration of this personal estate,’ ’ &c., “with a view to establish the fact as a link in the chain of circumstances constituting the fraud charged in the hill, but they so call upon them with a view to relief,” &c. “I can see no reason why they should not have this relief in this cause, if they, are entitled to it,” &c.

Meaning an account as to the personal estate. ’ The first branch of the proposition is correct, hut the authorities do not sustain the decision of the learned judge, in our opinion, in its practical application-to relief as^to several matters of distinct natures. The rule and its reason is concisely and clearly stated in MaddocJcs’ Chancery Practice, thus: “If a hill he brought concerning things of distinct natures against several persons, or against one, it is demur-rable ; hut not if combination is charged, unless it is denied by the answer, hut no more than combination should he answered, or the answer would overrule the demurrer. If joint and separate demands he comprehended in one hill, it is démurrahle; for, if the Court were to allow a plaintiff to demand by one hill several matters of different natures against several defendants, it would tend 'to load each defendant with an unnecessary burthen of costs, by swelling the pleadings with- the state of the several claims of the other defendants, with which he has no connection. Those cases, where unconnected parties have joined in a suit, are where there has been one common interest among them all, centering in the point in issue in the cause.” 2 Mad.

Ch. Pr., 294. It will he perceived, upon analysing the rule, that things of distinct natures cannot he introduced into a hill against two or more persons, unless combination is charged. And then, if the combination is denied by the answer, the hill is demurrable. ¹⁷¹ The hill before us is drawn with a double aspect.

It sedulously charges the appellant with studied duplicity and fraud,