Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1845
..... chew, 2 how. 619, 43 u. s. 642 , that it is page 44 u. s. 412 impracticable to lay down any rule, as to what constitutes multifariousness, as an abstract proposition; that each case must depend upon its own circumstances; and much must necessarily be left, where the authorities leave it, to the sound discretion ..... distinct in the tracts conveyed by oliver to the michigan university. we are of opinion that the bill is in no just sense multifarious. it is true that it embraces the claims of both the companies; but their interests are so mixed up in all these transactions, that entire justice ..... it can furnish no ground for any denial of the relief which the case otherwise requires. another objection urged at the argument is that the bill is multifarious in uniting the trust property owned by the piatt company and the port lawrence company in one bill, as the interests of each are separate and ..... be left to the discretion of the court. the objection of multifariousness can be taken by a party to the bill only by demurrer, or plea, or answer, and cannot be taken at the hearing of the cause. ..... the property to which the warranty is attached by descent, but as a purchaser thereof. whether a bill in equity is open to the objection of multifariousness or not must be decided upon all the circumstances of the particular case. no general rule can be laid down upon the subject, and much must .....Tag this Judgment!