Misjoinder

An improper joinder, whether of actions, causes of action, offenses, parties, etc. See "Joinder." MISKENNING (Fr. mis, wrong, and Saxon cennan, summon). A wrongful citation; a variance in a plea. 1 Mon. Angl. 237; Chart. Hen. II.; Jacob; Du Cange.

In Pleading. The improper union of parties or causes of action in one suit at law or in equity. Of Actions. The Joining several demands which the law does not permit to be Joined, to enforce by one proceeding several distinct, substantive rights of recovery. Gould, PL c. 4, § 98; Archb. Civ. PI. 61; Dane, Abr. In equity, it is the Joinder of different and distinct claims against one defendant; Adams, Eq. 809; 7 Sim. 241; Newland v. Rogers, « Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 432. The grounds of suit must be wholly distinct, and each ground must be sufficient, as stated, to sustain a bill; 5 Ired. Eq. 313. See Larkins V. Biddle, 21 Ala. 252; Nall v. Mobley, 9 Ga. 278; Dunn v. Cooper, 3 Md. Ch. Dec. 46; Robinson v. Cross, 22 Conn. 171. It may arise from the Joinder of plaintiffs who possess distinct claims; 2 Sim. 331; Yeaton v. Lenox, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 123, 8 L. Ed. 889; see [1893] 1 Q. B. 771; but see Brlnkerhoff T. Brown, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 160; More T. Smedburgh, 8 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 605; or the Joinder of distinct claims of the plaintiff in one bill; 2 S. & S. 79; Allegany & K. R. Oo. v. Weidenfeld, 6 Misc. 43, 26 N. Y. Supp. 71. But it seems that where there is a common liability of the defendants and a common interest in the plaintiffs^ different claims may be united in the same 12 Mete. (Mass.) 32$. And see 2 Y. ft C. 889; Story, Eq. PI. § 536, n.; Mt HaiFABidus Krass. At law, misjoinder vitiates the entire declaration, whether taken advantage of by general demurrer; 1 Maule & S. 356; motion in arrest of Judgment, or writ of error; 2 B. & P. 424. It may be aided by verdict In some cases; 2 Lev. 110; 2 Maule ft S. 533; I Ghitty PI. 188. Where a single count of a complaint contains one cause of action in tort and another in contract, and plaintiff is allowed over objections to introduce evidence to sustain both causes, the error is not cured by plaintiff’s election after the trial, to recover in contract only, when the Judgment rendered does not limit plaintiff’s recovery of costs to those incurred in the action in contract; Wirth v. Bartell, 84'Wls. 209, 64 N. W. 399. Of Parties. The Joining, as plaintiffs or defendants, parties who have not a Joint interest. In Blngland, under the Judicature Act, 1876, by order xvL v. 13, no action is to be defeated by the misjoinder of the parties. Different causes of action which cannot be tried together conveniently may be ordered by the court or a Judge to be tried separately. Mozl. ft W. Diet In equity, the Joinder of Improper plaintiffs is a fatal defect; Cammeyer v. United German Lutheran Churches, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 186; Clason v. I^awrence, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 48; Bowie v, Minter, 2 Ala. 406. But the court may exercise a discretion whether to dlsmis^' the bill; Murray v. Hay, 1 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 69, 43 Am. Dec. 773; Gilbert v. Sutliff, 8 Ohio St. 129. It may be dismissed wholly, or only as to a portion of the plaintiffs; Myers v. Farrington, 18 Ohio 72. The improper Joinder of defendants is no cause of objection by a co-defendant; Toulmln v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362; Bugbee v. Sargent, 23 Me. 269. See North Hudson Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Childs, 86 Wis. 292, 56 N. W. 870. The objection must be taken before the hearing; Livingston v. Woodworth, 15 How. (U. S.) 646, 14 L. Ed. 809; Trustees of Village of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 610, 27 Am. Dec. 80; not, however, if it be vital; Winnipisslogee Lake Co. v. Worster, 29 N. H. 433; by demurrer, if apparent on the face of the bill; Talmage v. Pell, 9 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 410; Toulmln v. Hamilton, 7 Ala. 362; Mc Millan v. Baxley, 112 N. 0. 578, 16 S. E. 845; but see Spear v. Campbell, 4 Scam. (111.) 424; by plea and answer; or otherwise; Story v. Livingston, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 369, 10 L. Ed. 200; where the defect does not appear upon the face of the petition, objection must be raised by answer; Crenshaw V. Ullman, 118 Mo. 633, 20 S. W. 1077. A defendant who is improperly Join^ must pl^d or demur; Lyne v. Guardian, 1 Mo. An answer stating facts showing a misjoinder of plaintiffs, but not objecting to the action on that ground is not sufl Elcient to save such an objection; Donahue v. Bragg, 49 Mo. App. 273; where no objection is made- in the court below to a misjoinder of parties defendant, no advantage can be taken of it on appeal; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. V. City of Denver, 2 Colo. App. 436, 31 Pac. 240. MISKENNING (Fr. mia, wrong, and Sax. cennan, summon). A wrongful citation to appear in court. A variance in a plea. 1 Mon. Angl. 237; Chart. Hen. II.; Jacob, Law Diet; Du Cange.

Improper joinder; the improper union of parties in an action, or of causes of action.

The improper foining together of partics to a suit, as plaintiffs or defendants, or of diiferent causes of action,

See Joi Ndee.

The improper joining of parties in a suit; or of different causes of action.

The uniting of things which ought not to be combined. It contrasts with nonjoinder, which is the omission of something which ought to be united. Important uses of the word are these; If persons are united as parties in an action, who ought not to be, this is termed a misjoinder of parties. H causes of action or counts, which ought' to be the subject of separate suits, are combined in one action, complaint, or