Sanborn v. Dwinell

• Decision Date: 21 June 1883
• Citation: 135 Mass. 236
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: James S. Sanborn v. James F. Dwinell & others

135 Mass. 236

James S. Sanborn v. James F. Dwinell & others

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 21, 1883

Suffolk. Bill in equity, filed June 21, 1882, against James F. Dwinell, John C. Mason, William P. Greeley, and John F Annable. The defendants demurred to the bill for multifariousness by reason of the misjoinder of causes of action and of parties defendant. Hearing before C. Allen J. who sustained the demurrers, and reserved the case for the consideration of the full court. If the demurrers should be sustained, the plaintiff was to have leave to amend the bill. The material allegations of the bill appear in the opinion.

Decree affirmed.

S. B Ives, Jr. & E. O. Shepard, for the defendants.

R. D. Smith & W. B. French, for the plaintiff.

Morton, C. J. Field & Devens, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Morton, C. J.

We are of opinion that this bill is multifarious. It embraces in the same suit several distinct matters and claims, and joins as defendants distinct parties, who have no common interest in the several distinct claims. Metcalf v. Cady, 8 Allen 587. Pope v. Salamanca Oil & Refining Co. 115 Mass. 286.

From 1868 to 1874, the plaintiff was a member of the firm of J. S. Sanborn and Company, the other member being the firm of Dwinell and Company, composed of the defendants Dwinell, Mason and Greeley, and one Kimball. The plaintiff complains that this firm of Dwinell and Company defrauded the firm of J. S. Sanborn and Company by selling it adulterated coffee, spices, and other articles. In 1874, Kimball withdrew from the firm, and subsequently died insolvent, and Annable took his place in the firm. Thus, a new firm of Dwinell and Company was formed, which then became a partner with the plaintiff in a new firm of J. S. Sanborn and Company. The plaintiff complains that the new firm of Dwinell and Company defrauded him in the same way. In 1876, Dwinell withdrew, and the remaining partners, Mason, Greeley, and Annable, formed a new firm, under the name of Mason and Company. At the same time a new firm of J. S. Sanborn and Company was formed, consisting of Sanborn and the firm of Mason and Company, which continued until November, 1877, when it was dissolved, by mutual consent, by an agreement in writing providing for a settlement of the affairs. The plaintiff complains that the firm of Mason and Company defrauded him in the same way, and that the agreement of dissolution was fraudulently obtained, and ought to be set aside. Each of the firms of Dwinell and Company and of Mason and Company, and each of the three firms of J. S. Sanborn and Company, was a distinct legal entity.

The bill thus sets out three separate complaints or causes of action: one against the...