Bobb v. Bobb

• Decision Date: 31 October 1882
• Citation: 76 Mo. 419
• Parties: BOBB et al., Appellants, v. BOBB.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

76 Mo. 419

BOBB et al., Appellants,

v.BOBB.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1882.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

REVERSED.

This was a bill in equity filed by John H. Bobb and Martrom D. Lewis, public administrator of the city of St. Louis, in charge of the estate of Charles L. Bobb, deceased, against Charles Bobb, Martha E. Bobb, William C. Jamison, Jane R. Perker, George W. Cline, Thomas Howard, William H. Letcher, Marshall D. Lyle, August Jackman, Leicester Babcock, George R. Hincke, Peter W. Hincke, Levi L. Ashbrook, Frank R. McGinness, Joseph Tippett, Elizabeth V. Peebles, Rufus W. Bailey, Amanda S. Rose, Louis H. Rose and Cora S. Taylor. The bill stated that in 1870 a bill in equity was filed in the St. Louis circuit court on behalf of the plaintiff, John H. Bobb, and of Charles L. Bobb, now deceased, and whose administrator is a party plaintiff herein, and of Lucy G. Taylor, who, before judgment, assigned her claim to John H. Bobb, in which bill the plaintiffs therein sought a decree in equity against the defendant, Charles Bobb, for an accounting and for judgment for the sum which should be found due them respectively upon an accounting. The bill further stated that in this suit brought in 1870, such proceedings were had that on the 15th day of June, 1878, the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, rendered a decree in favor of the plaintiff, John H. Bobb, and against Charles Bobb, for the sum of $27,538, and in favor of John H. Bobb, as assignee of Lucy G. Taylor, for the sum of $36,263, and in favor of the administrator of Charles L. Bobb, against Charles Bobb, for the sum of $18,382. The decree further awarded all costs against Charles Bobb. The bill further stated that the indebtedness for which a decree and judgment were rendered in the original suit, began to accrue and accumulate in the year 1845, and gradually increased until the 15th day of June, 1878, when a decree was rendered for the amount then due. The bill further stated that, from a time prior to the making of the several conveyances named in the bill, and subsequent to the time when the indebtedness for which a decree was rendered began to accrue and become due, the defendant, Charles Bobb, had, in pursuance of a systematic plan to hinder, defraud and delay his creditors, who subsequently obtained judgment for their claims, made to the several other defendants in this suit, divers conveyances, which are set out fully in the bill, together with a full description of the property, of certain lands lying for the most part in the city of St. Louis, but partly in the county of St. Louis; said conveyances consisting, as well of deeds in fee as of deeds in trust, which conveyances are all alleged in the bill to have been made without consideration, and with the sole purpose of removing the property affected by the several conveyances from the reach of his creditors on judgment and execution.

As the bill affected several pieces of property which had been, as it was alleged, in pursuance of the same plan and design, deeded to different parties, it was objected to on demurrer upon the ground of multifariousness.

The plaintiffs, upon the other hand, contended that as the allegations of the bill showed that all these conveyances were made in pursuance of one and the same purpose and design, that they were not to be put to the expense and trouble of bringing a dozen separate bills against the several parties, who only nominally, upon the record, appeared to be interested in these several pieces of property.

Upon the rendering of the decree in this case by the St. Louis circuit court, dismissing plaintiffs' bill, the plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which motion having been overruled, they appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, and from the decision of that court affirming the decree below, appealed to this court.

Henry Hitchcock for appellants.

The defendants may all be included in the same bill. The test to determine whether a bill is multifarious is not whether a defendant is connected with every branch of the case, but whether the bill seeks relief in respect to matters which in their nature are separate and distinct. A bill by creditors against an executor, an heir and several distinct purchasers of distinct parts of testator's real estate, for account and performance of agreement, is not multifarious. Salvidge v. Hyde, 5 Mad. 144, note b; Barbour on Parties, 349. And several judgment creditors holding different judgments may unite in filing a creditor's bill to reach the equitable interests and choses in action of the debtor or to obtain the aid of the court to enforce their liens at law. 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 154; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige 637, 638; Clarkson v. DePeyster, 3 Paige 320; Brinkerhoff v. Brown, 6 John. Ch. 151; Conro v. Port Henry Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27, 57. Where there is a unity of interest in the objects to be attained by the bill, the parties seeking relief may join in the same complaint. Harrison v. Kramer, 3 Iowa 554; Barbour on Parties, 452; Fellows v. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682; Hammond v. The Hudson, etc., Co., 20 Barb. 378; ...