Robinson v. Robinson

• Citation: 73 Me. 170
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
• Decision Date: 16 February 1882
• Parties: JOSEPHINE E. T. ROBINSON, in equity, v. SILAS W. ROBINSON and HATTIE R. VERRILL.

73 Me. 170

JOSEPHINE E. T. ROBINSON, in equity, v. SILAS W. ROBINSON and HATTIE R. VERRILL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

February 16, 1882

ON demurrer to a bill in equity.

The bill alleges that the complainant was married to the defendant Robinson, at Fitchburg, Massachusetts, September 25, 1877; that prior to the marriage and on the same day the defendant Robinson, for a valuable consideration made sealed, executed, acknowledged and delivered to her a warranty deed of certain premises in Portland; that she accepted the deed and has never parted with her right, title or interest, in any portion of the premises; that at the request of defendant Robinson, she retained the deed in her possession without causing it to be recorded; that the deed has been taken from her possession by some person unknown whom she believes to be the defendant Robinson, that she has been unable to find it and has repeatedly demanded of the defendant Robinson, another deed of like tenor to replace the lost deed and he promised and agreed so to do, but has neglected and now refuses so to do.

The bill also alleges that a pretended deed of said premises from defendant Robinson to defendant Verrill, purporting to have been made, & c. December 1st. 1875, was recorded April 12th, 1879.

" And your oratrix further complaining sheweth unto your honors that she is informed and believes that said pretended deed to said Hattie R. Verrill, although a warranty deed in form was made, executed and delivered, and intended by both parties thereto as security for payment of certain sums of money before the execution thereof advanced by said Hattie R Verrill to said Silas W. Robinson, the amounts and dates of which advances if any such were made as aforesaid, are to your oratrix unknown, or that said pretended warranty deed last mentioned was not in fact made, executed or delivered until long after the execution and delivery of first above mentioned deed, and was in fact fraudulently made, sealed, executed and delivered by said Silas W Robinson, if ever so delivered, for the purpose of enabling it to be placed upon record before said first mentioned deed, or any that might be given to supply its loss could be placed upon record, to thus enable said Hattie R. Verrill to acquire, for the benefit of said Silas W. Robinson, and herself an apparent legal title to the real estate described in said deed, in fraud of the rights of your oratrix."

" And your oratrix further sheweth unto your honors that if said pretended deed to said Hattie R. Verrill was so made as aforesaid without consideration and in fraud of the rights of your oratrix, the same is null and void and should be so decreed by this honorable court to remove an apparent cloud upon the title of your oratrix, and that if the same was made, executed and delivered, and received by the pretended grantee as security for advances, the same should, in equity and good conscience, be decreed by this honorable court to be a mortgage, so that your oratrix might pay to said Hattie R. Verrill whatever might be legally and equitably due her as such mortgagee, which your oratrix is ready and willing to do."

And praying that the defendant Robinson, be ordered to give the complainant the deed promised " and that the pretended warranty deed from said Silas W. Robinson to said Hattie R. Verrill herein before named, if made, sealed, executed and delivered and accepted fraudulently and without consideration as aforesaid, may be decreed to be null and void, and that said Hattie R. Verrill may be ordered and directed by this honorable court sitting in equity to make, seal, execute, and deliver to your oratrix a good and sufficient quitclaim deed of said real estate, or if said pretended warranty deed from said Silas W. Robinson to said Hattie R. Verrill shall be found by this honorable court to have been given and intended as security for advances as hereinbefore alleged that the same may be decreed to be a mortgage, and that the amount due thereon may be fixed and determined by the court, that she the said Hattie R. Verrill may, upon the tender from and by your oratrix of the amount so found to be due upon and on account of such advances, which amount when so determined your oratrix is ready and willing to pay, be ordered and decreed to release to your oratrix by good and sufficient deed of quitclaim all her, the said Hattie R. Verrill's right, title and interest in and to said real estate."

Charles P. Mattocks, for the complainant.

In K. and P. R. R. Co. v. P. and K. R. R. Co. 54 Me. 173, this court say: " To support this objection (multifariousness) two things must concur; ‘ First, the different grounds of suit must be wholly distinct; secondly, each ground must be sufficient as stated to sustain a bill; if the grounds be not entirely distinct and unconnected; if they arise out of one and the same transaction, or series of transactions, forming one course of dealing all tending to one end, if one connected story can be told of the whole, the objection does not apply.’ "

If the bill can be sustained against any of the defendants, those only can demur who are improperly joined. Story, Eq. Pl. § 544.

The bill relates entirely to connected matters, in every one of which Charles W. Robinson is interested and took part; hence it is not multifarious. Weston v. Blake, 61 Me. 455, and cases there cited; Story, Eq. Pl. § 541, a ; Dimmock v. Bixby, 37 Mass. 368; 20 Pick. 368.

It is impracticable to lay down any general rule as to what constitutes multifariousness as an abstract proposition, but such case must depend upon its own circumstances, and much must necessarily be left to the sound discretion of the court. Warren v. Warren, 56 Me. 360; Bugbee v. Sargent, 23 Me. 269; Story Eq. P. § 284, a, and cases there cited; Varick v. Smith, 5 Paige 137; Foss v. Haynes, 31 Me. 81; Newland v. Rogers, 3 Barb. C. R. 432. Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 642; Campbell v. Mackay, 7 Simon 564, and in 1 Mylne and Craig, 603.

The object of the rule against multifariousness is to protect a defendant from unnecessary expense; but it would be a great perversion of that rule if it were to impose upon the plaintiffs and all the other defendants two suits instead of one.

There seems to be, upon the authorities, no inflexible rule established as to what constitutes multifariousness.

The general principle is that the court will not, on the one hand, encourage an unnecessary multiplicity of actions, and, on the other hand, will not allow the plaintiff to join in his bill a multiplicity of different and distinct matters so as to embarrass the defendant in his defence, or to produce a confusion, or to render the case complicated and difficult to be understood. Robinson v. Guild, 53 Mass. 323; Cooper, Eq. Pl. 182; 1 Daniel, Ch. Pr. 394.

" It is the great object of courts of equity to put an end to litigation, and to settle, if possible, in a single suit, the rights of all parties interested or affected by the subject matter in controversy." Rowell v. Jewett, 69 Maine, p. 302; 2 Story's Eq. Jur. 745, § 1526; Attorney General v. The Corporation of Poole, 4 Myle and Craig, 17, 31; Daniell's Ch. Pl. and Pr. 337; Oliver v. Piatt, 3 Howard, 333; Adams, Doctrine of Eq. 602, and cases cited; Many v. Beekman Iron Co. 9 Paige 188.

At law, a disputed issue is alone contested, the immediate disputants alone are bound by the decision; and they alone are the proper parties to the action. In equity, a decree is asked and not a decision only, and it is, therefore, requisite that all persons should be before the court whose interests may be affected by the purposed decree or whose concurrence is necessary to a complete arrangement. Adams' Doc. of Eq. p. 607; Bailey v. Myrick, 36 Me. 50; Story's Eq. Pl. § 72; K. and P. R. R. Co. v. P. and K. R. R. Co. 54 Me. 184.

It is a settled principle in equity that all persons to be affected by the result of a suit must be made parties. Pierce v. Faunce, 47 Me. 507.

S. C Strout, H. W. Gage and F. S....