CAUSE OF ACTION. In Practice. Mat ter for which an action may be brought.
A cause of action is said to accrue to any person when that person first comes to a right to bring an action. Thera is, however, an obvious distinction between a cause of action and a right, though a cause of action generally confers a right. statutes of limitation do not affect the cause of action, but take away the right. A cause of action implies that there Is some person in existence who can bring suit and als0 a Person who can lawfully be sued ; Douglas v. Beasley, 40 Ala. 148; Parker v. Enslow, 102 III. 272, 40 Am. Rep. 588. See Parish v. Ward, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 330; 4 Bing. 704; Graham v. Scripture, 26 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 501.
When a wrong has been committed, or a breach of duty has occurred, the cause of action has accrued, although the claimant may be ignorant of it; 3 B. & Ald. 288, 626 ; 5 B. & C. 259; 4 C. & P. 127. A cause of action does not accrue until the existence of such a state of things as will enable a per son having the proper relations to the prop erty or persons concerned to bring an ac tion ; 5 B. & C. 360 ; 8 D. & ER. 346; 4 Bingh. 686.
"A cause of action consists of those facts as to two or more persons entitling at least some one of them to a judicial remedy of some sort against the other, or others, for the redress or prevention of a wrong. It is essential to the existence of such facts that there should be a right to be violated and a violation thereof. Since those two elements constitute a cause of action, and to satisfy the statute [Code pleading statute as to joinder of action] they must arise out of one or more circumstances called a transaction, the latter is to be viewed as something distinct from the cause of action itself, else the latter could not arise out of the former." Emerson v. Nash, 131 Wis. 369, 102 N. W. 921, 70 L. R. A. 326, 109 Am. St. Rep. 944.
Every judicial action has in it certain necessary elements—a primary right belong ing to the plaintiff and a corresponding primary right devolving upon the defendant; the wrong done by the defendant, which consists of a breach of such primary right and duty; a remedial right in plaintiff and a remedial duty upon the defendant, and, finally, the remedy or relief itself. Of these the primary right and duty and the delict or wrong constitute the cause of ac tion"; Wildman v. Wildman, 70 Conn. 700, 41 Atl. 1. Stated in brief, a cause of action
may be said to consist of a right belonging to the plaintiff and some wrongful act or omission done by defendant by which that right has been violated. Pom. Rem. § 453.
It comprises every fact necessary to the right to the relief prayed for; McAndrews v. R. Co., 162 Fed. 856, 89 C. C. A. 546. In United States v. Land Co., 192 U. S. 355, 24 Sup. Ct. 266, 48 L. Ed. 476, it was said by Holmes, J.: "The whole tendency of our decisions is to require a plaintiff to try his whole cause of action and his whole case at one time; he cannot even split up his claim (1 Salk. 11; Trask v. R. Co., 2 Allen (Mass.) 331; Freem. Judge [4th Ed.] § 238, 241) and, a fortiori, he cannot divide the grounds of recovery;" and this language is quoted in Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Slaght, 205 U. S. 132, 27 Sup. Ct. 446, 51 L. Ed. 742.
Where a party brings an action for a part only of the entire indivisible demand and recovers judgment, . he cannot subse quently sue for part of the same demand; Baird v. U. S., 96 U. S. 432, 24 L. Ed. 703.
This rule applies to the foreclosure of a mortgage on several tracts of land ; if the mortgagee forecloses as to a portion of the land, he waives his lien as to the rest; Mascarel v. Balfour, 51 Cal. 242. So of a vendor having a lien for the purchase mon ey on lands; if he enforces the lien as to a portion of the land, he may not bring a second suit; Day v. Preskett, 40 Ala. 624. And it was held in Codwise v. Taylor, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 346, that if he proceeded to enforce his lien for a portion of the money which is due, he exhausts his remedy as to the rest of the land for that portion of the debt afterwards maturing.
But a defendant may not split his counter claim, using part of it as a defense and then sue on the other part; Palm's Adm'rs v. How ard, 102 S. W. 267, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 316; tid.; 102 S. W. 1199, 31 Ky. Law Rep. 814. A suit on a bond- and a suit on its coupons are on different causes of action; Presidio County v. Bond & Stock Co., 212 U. S. 58, 29 Sup. Ct. 237, 53 L. Ed. 402. The words "arising out of the same cause of action" in United States admiralty rule 53 are used in a more general sense as meaning the same transaction, dispute or subject matter; United Transp. & Lighterage Co. v. Transp. Line, 185 Fed. 388, 107 C. C. A. 442, follow ing Vianello v. The Credit Lyonnais, 15 Fed. 637.