Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 Pennyp. 463

Young's Appeal

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · decided 1883-03-27

<p>1. The fact that each of the complainants has sustained the same kind of an injury is not sufficient to authorize them to file a joint bill, where the cause of complaint is separate and distinct.</p> <p>2. Where a bill disclosed that its principal object was to recover damages for an alleged fraud in making the contract, it was properly dismissed, since the complainants had a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law.</p> <p>3. A prayer for a rescission of the contract, upon the ground of fraud and conspiracy, does not relieve the bill from the fatal consequences of no joint cause of action.</p>

Decided 1883-03-27

— Per Curiam:

¶1We think the evidence fails to disclose any joint cause of action in the appellants. The cause of complaint is shown to be separate and distinct in each. It is not sufficient that each has sustained the same kind of injury. This does not authorize them to file a joint bill. The principal object of this bill is to recover damages for an alleged fraud’ in making the contract. To recover these the appellants have a full, complete, and adequate remedy at law. The prayer for a rescission of the contract does not relieve the case from the fatal consequence of no joint cause of action in the appellants.

¶2Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.

/3/pennyp/463 · .json · Public domain