McGowan v. McGowan
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Hinds county, 1st district, Cabaniss, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case. All the authorities agree that no general rule can be laid down to define multifariousness, and that each particular bill must of necessity be tested by facts it sets forth. Story Ecp PI.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Hinds county, 1st district, Cabaniss, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case. All the authorities agree that no general rule can be laid down to define multifariousness, and that each particular bill must of necessity be tested by facts it sets forth. Story Ecp PI. (ed. 1848), § 530. By multifariousness in a bill, is meant the improper joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them; as, for example, the uniting in one bill of several matters perfectly distinct and independent,…
1Opinion of the Court
SlMRALL, J. :
The demurrer was sustained and the bill dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. In Roberts et al. v. Starke et al., 47 Miss., we examined with some care this doctrine upon the authorities. Whilst some general rules have been established by them, so few cases arise in which they clearly and fitly apply, it is necessary that each instance shall stand very much on its own circumstances. Among the rules deduced from the cases is this: where several subjects are introduced, if, as to the subject-matters and the relief, all the defendants are connected, though differently, with…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- O. C. Tiffany & Co. v. JohnsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by8 opinions
- Meyer v. MeyerMississippi Supreme Court · 1913
- Carter v. KimbroughMississippi Supreme Court · 1920
- Waller v. ShannonMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Bridgeman v. BridgemanMississippi Supreme Court · 1942
- Martin v. McGrawMississippi Supreme Court · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.