Staude v. Keck

• Decision Date: 06 February 1896
• Parties: STAUDE et al. v. KECK et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

24 S.E. 227

92 Va. 644

STAUDE et al.

v.KECK et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Feb. 6, 1896.

Equity Pleading—Multifariousness.

A bill which, after setting out the claims of several plaintiffs against the principal defendant, and asking that a deed from him to the second defendant be set aside as fraudulent, and 'the property subjected to the payment of plaintiffs' claims, goes on to show antagonistic interests among plaintiffs themselves, praying relief against one another and against a third defendant, in matters with which the main defendant has little concern, and the second defendant none at all, and the settlement of which would delay the determination of the principal controversy and impose unnecessary and unjust costs on the second defendant, —is multifarious.

Appeal from chancery court of Richmond.

Bill by A. J. Staude and others against Henry J. Keck and others. From a decree dismissing the bill on demurrer, for multifariousness, complainants appeal. Affirmed.

F. M. Conner, for appellants.

Edmund Waddell, Jr., for appellees.

CARDWELL, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of the city of Richmond entered on the 15th of November, 1892, dismissing, on demurrer, the bill of complaint filed by the appellant, for multifariousness. The bill was filed by A. J. Staude and Caroline C. Staude, his wife, and E. G. Schwalm and Mary C. Schwalm, his wife, against Henry J. Keck and Maria Keck, his wife, and J. B. Elam, trustee; the object of the bill being to set aside, as fraudulent, a deed made by H. J. Keck to his wife, Maria Keck, August 24, 1891, conveying to her certain property, and to subject this property t6 the payment of the debts against H. J. Keck, set out in the bill, and, further, to have the court adjudicate the rights of the complainants, respectively, as to the various debts and demands asserted in the bill, declaring an apparent trust in J. B. Elam for plaintiff Mary R. Schwalm void. The bill alleges that complainants, on the 10th of August, 1891, entered into a written contract, through A. J. Staude, with Henry J. Keck, whereby Keck agreed to purchase, at the price of $3,400, a certain House and lot in the city of Richmond, on Rocketts street, and to purchase certain bar fixtures, etc., at the price of $600; that the house and lot belonged, at that time, one moiety to Mary R. Schwalm and the other moiety was held in trust by J. B. Elam for Caroline C. Staude; that the bar fixtures, etc., belonged exclusively to A. J. Staude, he being authorized by Caroline C. Staude and Mary R. Schwalm to make the sale of the house and lot; that, on the 18th of August, 1891, the deed was duly executed conveying the property to Keck; that Keck agreed to pay $3,000 in cash on the purchase of thehouse, but paid only $2,850, which he borrowed from the Virginia Building & Loan Company, giving a deed of trust on this property, to secure the building and loan company, for $3,000, the company promising to advance the remaining $150 within a few months to finish the cash payment, but never did so; that H. J. Keck executed another deed of trust, as a second lien on this property, to S. McFisher, to secure the payment of six notes of $111 each, dated August 10, 1891, payable at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after date, respectively; that four of these notes were given as the deferred payments for the purchase of the house and lot, and the other two on account of the $600 due to A. J. Staude for the purchase of the bar fixtures, etc.; that all of said notes were made payable to J. B. Elam, trustee for Caroline C. Staude and Mary R. Schwalm, and this was erroneous, but was done for convenience. The bill further alleges that J. B. Elam is not trustee for Mary R. Schwalm; that two of the notes were past due and unpaid, and the other four to become due; that Keck...