Legal Opinion

Komenarsky v. Brode

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 2, 1931No. Appeal, 328PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

The bill was dismissed in the court below on the theory that it was multifarious and that complainant had adequate remedy at law. Where distinct and independent causes of action are joined in one bill, or several parties not connected with the controversy in its legitimate scope are joined, a bill in equity is multifarious. But, if the court, in its discretion, believes the joinder in one suit of different matters or parties will promote the convenient administration of justice, the bill will be sustained. See Buie 36, Equity Buies: Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh & L.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
  2. Fell v. PittsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919
  3. Loan Society v. EavensonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
  4. McMullen Lumber Co. v. StrotherCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1905
  5. Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1919

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Falsetti v. Local Union No. 2026, United Mine Workers of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
  2. Drummond v. DrummondSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1964
  3. Seaboard Industries, Inc. v. MonacoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Knox Glass Bottle Co. v. UnderwoodMississippi Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Kepler v. KeplerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API