MULTIFARIOUSNESS. In Equity Plead ing. The demand in one bill of several mat ters of a distinct and independent nature against several defendants. Cooper, Eq. Pl. 182; 18 Ves. 80; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 682, 15 Am. Dec. 412; White v. Cur tis, 2 Gray (Mass.) 467. See Dan. Ch. Pr. 2093.
The uniting in one bill against a single de fendant several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected. More commonly called mis joinder of claims. See MISJOINDEB.
Multifariousness of the first kind is where the plaintiff joins several distinct claims against the same defendant and prays relief in' respect to all; and of the second kind is where a plaintiff having a valid claim against one defendant joins another person as defendant in the same suit with a large part of which he is not connected.
The objection is discouraged where it might defeat the ends of justice ; Marshall v. Means, 12 Ga. 61, 56 Am. Dec. 444; but join der will be allowed unless it is apparent that the defence will be seriously embarrassed by confusing different issues and proofs in the same litigation; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 376, Fed. Cas. No. 10,367. A bill is multifari ous where there is a misjoiuder of distinct and independent causes of action. See Sav age v. Benham, 17 Ala. 119. Thus, uncon nected demands against different estates can not be united in the same bill, though the defendant is executor in both; Daniel v. Mor rison's Ex'r, 6 Dana (Ky.) 186; nor will a bill lie against two different partnerships, though one defendant is a partner in both; Griffin v. Merrill, 10 Md. 364; nor a bill com bining individual claims with claims in a representative capacity ; Carter v. Treadwell, 3 Story 25, Fed. Cas. No. 2,480 ; but a bill may be brought by several persons claiming under a common title but in different shares; Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. (U. S.) 253, 15 L. Ed. 368 ; and where there is a joinder of a legal and an equitable claim and a prayer for relief as to both, the bill is not multifari ous; Carpenter v. Hall, 18 Ala. 439. To jus
tify dismissal on this ground, it must appear that the interests are so diverse that they cannot be properly included in one decree ; Michan v. Wyatt, 21 Ala. 813.
The vice of multifariousness is the union of causes of action which, or of parties whose claims, it is either impractical or in convenient to adjudicate in a single suit. Where it is as practical and convenient for court and parties to deal with the claims and parties joined in one suit as in many, there is no multifariousness; Westinghouse A. B. Co. V. R. Co., 137 Fed. 26, 71 C. C. A. 1. It does not apply where all the defend ants' acts are of like character, their effect on complainant is identical, and the same relief is sought against all, the defenses be ing the same; Bitterman v. R. Co., 207 U. S. 206, 28 Sup. Ct. 91, 52 L. Ed. 171, 12 Ann. Cas. 693.
The question is always largely within the discretion of the court ; Horner-Gaylord Co. v. Miller, 147 Fed. 297; U. S. v. Telephone Co., 128 U. S. 315, 9 Sup. Ct. 90, 32 L. Ed. 450; Brown v. Deposit Co., 128 U. S. 403, 9 Sup. Ct. 127, 32 L. Ed. 468 ; Shafer v. O'Brien, 31 W. Va. 601, 8 S. E. 298.
A bill for infringement of a patent and for unfair trade is not; Onondaga I. W. Co. v. Mfg. Co., 182 Fed. 832 ; contra, Keas by & Mattison Co. v. Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 432 ; nor is a bill by the equitable owner of a patent for its infringement and to compel a transfer; Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Lighting Co., 164 Fed. 60; nor for infringement of several patents with an averment that the inven tions are capable of "conjoint use" ; South ern Plow Co. v. Agr. Works, 165 Fed. 214 ; nor is a bill multifarious because it seeks to enforce two series of bonds, both owned by the complainant and issued by the same city ; Burlington Say. Bank v. Clinton, 106 Fed. 269.
A bill framed with a double aspect is not multifarious; Baines v. McGee, 1 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 208 ; Murphy v. Clark, id., 221.