¶1 That there is a misjoinder, both of parties and causes of action, is apparent on the face of the complaint, since 0. S., 2513, authorizes a suit by a married woman to recover damages for personal injuries without the joinder of her husband (Kirkpatrick v. Crutchfield, 178 N. C., 348, 100 S. E., 602), and the several causes of action, united in the present complaint, do not “affect all the parties to the action,” as required by C. S., 507.
¶2 Where this dual misjoinder occurs, as in the instant case, and a demurrer is accordingly interposed, the decisions are to the effect that the demurrer should be sustained and the action dismissed. Shuford v. Yarborough, 198 N. C., 5, 150 S. E., 618; Bank v. Angelo, 193 N. C., 576, 137 S. E., 705; Roberts v. Mfg. Co., 181 N. C., 204, 106 S. E., 664; Thigpen v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 97, 65 S. E., 750.
¶3 The case of Shore v. Holt, 185 N. C., 312, 117 S. E., 165, is not at variance with our present holding.
¶4 Affirmed.