Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/717

 HAYES tl. DAYTON. 703- �lights, skylight turrets, conservatories, and other glazed structures, and ventilating louvres." �The defendant demurs to the -whole bill, and in the demurrer shows, for cause of demurrer, — �"That it appears by tho said bill that it is exhibited against tl'iis defendant ior several and distinct matters and causes j in many whereof, as appears by said bill, the defendant is not in any manner interested or concerned, and which said several matters and causes are distinct and separate one from the other, and are not alleged in said bill to be conjointly infringed by said defendaut. . By reason of the distinct matters therein contained the complain- ant's bill i^ dfawn out to considerable length, and the defenda'nt is compelled to take a copy of the whole thereof, and by joining distinct matters togetherf which do not depend on each other, in the said bill, tha pleadings, orders, and prdceedlngs, iwill, in the progress of the said suit,. b.e intricate and prolix„,and the defendant be put to unnecessary charges- in taking copies of the same^" �"The defendant j "not waiving his said demurrer, but relying there* on," bas put in simultaneously an answer to the whole bill. �This demurrer does not use the word "multifarioas." A bill is ■multifarious when it improperly uniteain one bill, agadnst one defend- ant, several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected, or when it demands several matters, of a distinct and independent nature,, against several defendants, in the same bill. The reason of the first case is that the defendant would be compelled to unite, in his answer and defence, different matters wholly unconnected with each othery and thus the proof s applicable to each would be apt to be confounded with each other, and delays would be occasioned by waiting for the proofs respecting one of the matters when the others might be fully ripe for hearing. The reason of the second case is that each defend- ant would have an unnecessary bnrden of costs, by the statoment in the pleadings of the several claims of the other defendants with which he has no connection. Story, Eq. PI. § 271. �The demurrer in this case is intended to be a demurrer for mis- joining causes of suit against one defendant. Yet much of it is inap- plicable to Buch a case, and is taken from a form which applies only to the case of a demurrer by one.of two or more defendants, who has no coneem with causes of action stated against the other defendants, such a demurrer being really a demurrer for a misjoinder of parties. Story, Eq. PI. § 530, and note 3, where is to be found the form im- properly used in this case. Yet there seems to be enough left, after rejecting as surplusage the improper and utinecessary part, to raise the point intended. The demurrer, in regard to misjoining causesiof ��� �