There is no general rule by which to de termine whether a bill is multifarious be cause it joins another person as defendant in a suit with a large part of which he is unconnected; it must be left to the discre tion of the court; Oliver v. Pratt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333, 11 L. Ed. 622 ; Shields v. Thomas, 18 How. (U. S.) 259, 15 L. Ed. 368; the courts do not disregard previous decisions, but have a due regard to general convenience and the advancement of justice; Dunn v. Cooper, 3 Md. Ch. 47.
Defendants should not be put to the un necessary trouble and expense of answer ing litigated matters in a bill in which they are not interested ; Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 432 ; but where the In terests of different parties are so complicat ed in different transactions that entire jus tice could not be conveniently done without uniting the whole, the bill is not multifari ous; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333, 11 L. Ed. 622; Page v. Whidden, 59 N. H. 507. The objection is confined to cases where the cause of each defendant is entirely different in subject-matter from that of his co-de fendants, but it does not apply to a case where a general right is claimed by the plaintiff, though the defendants may have separate and distinct rights ; Heggie v. Hill, 95 N. C. 303; Donovan v. Dunning, 69 Mo.
436. To render a bill multifarious it must contain not only separate and distinct mat ters, but such that each entitles the com plainant to separate equitable relief ; Adams, Eq. 310.
The objection should be raised by de murrer ; Grove v. Fresh, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 280; filing an answer and taking the testi mony on the merits waives the objection, and it cannot be made on appeal after a decree pro confesso; id.; Gilmore v. Sapp, 100 Ill. 297; or after a final dedree on the merits of one part of the bill; Betts v. Betts, 18 Ala. 787a In Persch v. Quiggle, 57 Pa. 247, it was held that it was too late to object at the hearing. But in such case it has also been held that its allowance rests in the discretion of the court; Felder v. Davis, 17 Ala. 425. It may be taken by plea, answer, or demurrer, but not at the hear ing; but the court may raise it at any time; Oliver v. Platt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333, 11 L. Ed. 622.
One defendant cannot demur on the ground of the joinder of another defendant who does not object. See 38 N. J. Eq. 89, note.
A demurrer goes to the whole suit, and, if sustained, the bill should be dismissed; Dunn v. Cooper, 3 Md. Ch. 46;. McIntosh v. Alexander, 16 Ala. 87. See MISJOINDER.