Multieariousness

s Blending in one bill in equity matters which in their nature are distinct and independent. Improperly joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them. 9 ' People V. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 148-49 (1878), Church, Chief Justice. "Chesley v. King, 74 Me. 175 (1882): 8 Gray, 409; 72 N. Y. 39; 24 Pa. 308; 27 Vt. 505; 32 id. 737. ■ See 22 Wall. 507; 121 Mass. 629. ' Strong V. White, 19 Conn. 245 (1848), Storrs, J.; 96 111. 448. » Penniman v. French, 17 Pick. 405 (1835). " Inhabitants of Medway v. Inhabitants of Natiok, 7 Mass. '89 (1810); Thurman v. State, 18 Ala. 278 (1850). ' L. mulcta, a fine. » L. multus, many; fart, to speak: claiming various Embi'acing in the same bill distinct matters, which do not af Fect all the defendants alike.' A bill is subject to this defect, if one of two complainants has no standing in court, if they set up antagonistic causes of action, or the relief for which they respectively pray involves totally distinct questions, requiring different evidence and leading to different decrees.* But charging different sources of right does not introduce the vice.3 It is impracticable to lay down any rule as to what constitutes multifariousness, as an abstract proposition. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances, and be left, necessarily, to the sound discretion of the court. It cannot be objected to, as of right, except by demurrer, plea, or answer; and not at all, at so late a'p^riod as the hearing, or in the appellate court. But it may be taken by the court sua sponte, when necessary to the administration of justice.* As a rule, th0 Court will not subject parties to the expense, vexation, and delay of several suits, where the transactions constituting the subject of the litigation, or out of which the litigation arises, are so connected by their circumstances as to render it proper and convenient that they should be examined in the same suit, and full relief given by one comprehensive decred.^ A different rule would often prove oppressive and mischtevous, and result in no benefit to a litigant whose object was not simply to harass his adversary, but to ascertain his legal right^.^ MtTLTIPLICITY.' Instituting two or more actions having the same issue. Obviated, in a court of equity, by a bill of peace; in a court of law, by a rule to consolidate the actions. To prevent a multiplicity of suits at law, a court of equity will take cognizance of a matter in cases of accouht, agency, apportionment, general average, contribution, suretyship, confusion of boundaries, rents And profits, waste, arid partnership. ^ See Interest, 1, Rei, etc.