From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowles v. Sacramento Turnpike & Plank Road Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1855
5 Cal. 224 (Cal. 1855)


         Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.


         Ralston & Wallace, for Appellant, in support of the appeal, cited: 1 Ch. on Pl. 226; 7 Blackf. 601; 1 Cush. 123; Bouv. L. Dic. title Mispleader; 9 How. Pr. R. 123, 231, 375, 476.

          J. Neely Johnson, for Respondents.

         The demurrer was well taken. Smith v. Hallock, 8 How. Pr. R. 73. Getty v. Hudson River R. R. Co. Ibid. 117. 4 How. Pr. R. 226.

         The statute authorizes several causes to be united in the same action, but each cause must be separately stated. Each must be stated separately, distinctly, and specifically, as if in different complaints. There should be only one cause of action in each count of the complaint. The object of the statute was to prevent the multiplicity of suits, and the plaintiff is still bound by the rules of pleading recognized by the Courts of common law, which require him to state in distinct terms the damage he claims for each trespass upon his rights. Benedict v. Seymour, 6 How. Pr. R. 298.

         The complaint is at variance with § 64, Prac. Act.

         JUDGES: Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.


          BRYAN, Judge

         This cause comes up upon final judgment rendered upon demurrer. The complaint is too loosely drawn, and embraces entirely too much, even for our liberal system of practice.

         A claim for the possession of real property, with damages for its detention, cannot be joined in the same complaint, under any system of pleading, with a claim for consequential damages arising from a change of a road by which a tavern-keeper may have been injured in his business.

         The damages in the one case arise out of the use of land claimed by the plaintiffs; the damages in the other case would arise from an unauthorized diversion of a public road, by means of which the plaintiff suffered a loss of his usual business and profits. It will not be necessary to decide whether, under the laws of this State, an individual can sue for consequential damages, arising to him in the loss of his usual profits by the unauthorized obstruction or diversion of a public road. A party thus guilty can immediately be prosecuted under the criminal law.

         The judgment upon the demurrer must be affirmed, with costs.

Held, a misjoinder of causes of action to unite: A demand for materials furnished, and to set aside a conveyance on the ground of fraud, Macondray v. Simmons , 1 Cal. 395; a claim of damages for a personal tort, and a demand properly cognizable in equity,

         It is not a misjoinder of causes of action to unite: Claim for dissolution of partnership, and for damages under the partnership contract, 3 Cal. 292; claim for recovery of real property with damages for withholding it, and for rents and profits, Sullivan v. Davis , 4 Cal. 291; ejectment against several defendants claiming different portions of the premises, Winans v. Christy , 4 Cal. 70, and Ritchie v. Dorland , 6 Cal. 33; claim of damages for trespass on mining claim and application for injunction, Gates v. Kieff , 7 Cal. 124; claim of damages for diversion of water and application for injunction, Marius v. Bicknell , 10 Cal. 217, and Weaver v. Conger , 10 Cal. 237; claim for judgment against maker of a note, and for foreclosure against him and another who executed a mortgage to secure it, Rollins v. Forbes , 10 Cal. 299; ejectment for two separate tracts, all the parties to the action being affected, and the causes separately stated, Boles v. Cohen , 15 Cal. 150; action against maker on promissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage given to said maker to secure him against liability as surety for the mortgagor, and assigned to plaintiff to secure said note, Farwell v. Jackson , 28 Cal. 105; action by parties claiming an interest in an entire rancho, to charge parties holding the same in separate parcels by title derived from the confirmee with a trust in favor of plaintiff, and to compel conveyance, Willson v. Castro , 31 Cal. 420; claim of damages for past trespasses on land by assignee, and to enjoin threatened future trespasses, More v. Massini , 32 Cal. 590; action to recover land and to restrain waste pending the same, Natoma W. & M. Co. v. Clarkin , 14 Cal. 544; joining of legal and equitable causes of action when warranted by the facts, Gray v. Dougherty , 25 Cal. 277; commented on, More v. Massini , 32 Cal. 590.

Mayo Madden Ramirez Murray, ante Bowles Sacramento T. & P. Co., supra ; quare clausum fregit Bigelow Gove Weaver Conger People Skidmore McCarty Fremont Ghirardelli Bourland

Summaries of

Bowles v. Sacramento Turnpike & Plank Road Co.

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1855
5 Cal. 224 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Bowles v. Sacramento Turnpike & Plank Road Co.

Case Details

Full title:James S. Bowles, Appellant, v. The Sacramento Turnpike&Plank Road Company…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Jul 1, 1855


5 Cal. 224 (Cal. 1855)