Ellis v. N. Pac. R. Co.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
Writing for the CourtCOLE
Citation77 Wis. 114,45 N.W. 811
Decision Date20 May 1890
PartiesELLIS v. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ET AL.

77 Wis. 114
45 N.W. 811

ELLIS
v.
NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

May 20, 1890.


Appeal from circuit court, Douglas county; R. D. MARSHALL, Judge.

[45 N.W. 812]

Catlin & Butler, ( James McNaught and I. C. Sloan, of counsel,) for appellants.

D. E. Roberts, for respondent.


COLE, C. J.

This is an action to quiet title to certain lots of land described in the complaint. The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner and in the actual possession of the lands, deriving his title from the county of Douglas, under certain deeds. He sets out, not only his own chain of title, but also the title of the different defendants to the action. The defendants derive their title from different sources, and their claims are in conflict, though they are all interested in the subject-matter of the litigation adversely to the plaintiff. The defendant Bradford appeared and answered: The defendant Sage made a general appearance for himself, and the railroad corporation filed a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action, and also upon the further ground that the complaint does not state a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled by the circuit court, and from the order so overruling the demurrer this appeal is taken.

The first question to be considered is as to the multifariousness of the complaint. It is insisted that the complaint unites perfectly independent and distinct causes of action, which cannot be joined. To this objection the learned circuit judge gives a complete and satisfactory answer in his opinion filed in the case. He says, in substance, that in cases of this character the object sought is to bring all parties before the court who are interested in the subject-matter of the action adversely to the plaintiff, to the end that all interests may be determined and all parties bound by a single decree; and that a court of equity in such cases has power to determine the rights of all the parties, including the conflicting rights of the defendants as between each other. This, we think, is a correct view of the law upon this subject. All the defendants, though their respective claims spring from different sources, have a common interest in the point in litigation, and ought to be joined in order to settle the plaintiff's title. The fact that the railroad company claims all the lands, and the other defendants claim separate parcels, does not render the joinder of all as defendants improper, nor make the complaint multifarious. This is the fair result of the decisions in Winslow v. Dousman, 18 Wis. 457;Blake v. Von Tilborg, 21 Wis. 672;Hamlin v. Wright, 23 Wis. 492; Bassett v. Warner, Id. 673; Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. Rep. 683. “A complaint does not improperly unite several causes of action, which relate to matters of the same nature, all connected with each other, and in which all the defendants are more or less interested or concerned, though their rights in respect to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Lewis v. Leon County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 23, 1926
    ...ex rel. Nuveen v. Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 739, text 747, 37 A. L. R. 1298; 12 C.J. 1091; 15 C.J. 627; Ellis v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N.W. 811), [107 So. 168] and, as, in view of the organic provision limiting county taxation to county purposes, the Legislature was withou......
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...46 N. W. 819;Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808;Draper v. Brown, 115 Wis. 361, 91 N. W. 1001;Douglas Co. v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;......
  • Kruezinski v. Neuendorf
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 12, 1898
    ...no misjoinder of causes of action. Bassett v. Warner, 23 Wis. 673;Watson v. Railway Co., 57 Wis. 339, 15 N. W. 468,Ellis v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811. 3. Another ground of demurrer is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This cert......
  • Harrington v. Atteberry, No. 1740.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • July 15, 1915
    ...Colo. 192; Taylor v. Ross County Comr's, 23 Ohio St. 22; Wilkesbarre City Hospital v. County of Luzerne, 84 Pa. 55; Ellis v. N. R. R. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811; Johns v. Wadsworth, 80 Wash. 352, 141 Pac. 892. In Colorado Central R. Co. v. Lea et al., supra, the board of county commissi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • January 8, 1908
    ...46 N. W. 819;Woodward v. Hanchett, 52 Wis. 482, 9 N. W. 468;Leinenkugel v. Kehl, 73 Wis. 238, 40 N. W. 683;Ellis v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811;Grady v. Maloso, 92 Wis. 666, 66 N. W. 808;Draper v. Brown, 115 Wis. 361, 91 N. W. 1001;Douglas Co. v. Walbridge, 38 Wis. 179;......
  • Lewis v. Leon County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 23, 1926
    ...ex rel. Nuveen v. Greer, 88 Fla. 249, 102 So. 739, text 747, 37 A. L. R. 1298; 12 C.J. 1091; 15 C.J. 627; Ellis v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N.W. 811), [107 So. 168] and, as, in view of the organic provision limiting county taxation to county purposes, the Legislature was withou......
  • Kruezinski v. Neuendorf
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 12, 1898
    ...no misjoinder of causes of action. Bassett v. Warner, 23 Wis. 673;Watson v. Railway Co., 57 Wis. 339, 15 N. W. 468,Ellis v. Railroad Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811. 3. Another ground of demurrer is that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This cert......
  • Harrington v. Atteberry, No. 1740.
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • July 15, 1915
    ...Colo. 192; Taylor v. Ross County Comr's, 23 Ohio St. 22; Wilkesbarre City Hospital v. County of Luzerne, 84 Pa. 55; Ellis v. N. R. R. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811; Johns v. Wadsworth, 80 Wash. 352, 141 Pac. 892. In Colorado Central R. Co. v. Lea et al., supra, the board of county commissi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT