Strong v. Robbins
Strong v. Robbins
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing his suit on exceptions of misjoinder of parties defendant and improper cumulation of demands.
The demands are for a partition of three
The plaintiff relies upon the decisions in Bayly v. Becnel, 36 La. Ann. 778, Helen Stafford v. Succession of McIntosh, 38 La. Ann. 666, and Gibbs v. Executor, 47 La. Ann. 766, 17 South. 291, in support of his right to cumulate his demand against the heirs for partition of the real estate with his demand against the administrator for an accounting and to be recognized as a creditor of the succession. In our opinion, the decisions cited do not apply to this case, because the plaintiff here is not only demanding rent of the real estate of which he also demands a partition, but is also suing on various obligations alleged to he due by the succession on entirely different causes of action. As was said in Speyrer v. Miller, 108 La. 217, 32 South. 624, 61 L. R. A. 781, it is true the law abhors a multiplicity of suits, but it also abhors the cumulation of different demands against defendants who have no common interest.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STRONG v. ROBBINS
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- (Syllabus 6y the Court.) Action &wkey;>50 — Joindeb of Causes. The cumulation of different demands in one suit against several defendants having no common interest to defend cannot he sanctioned on the principle that the law does not favor a multiplicity of suits. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Action, Cent. Dig. §§ 511-547; Dec. Dig. &wkey;50.]