Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Year: 1886 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.001 seconds)

Jan 11 1886 (FN)

Stebbins Vs. St. Anne

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-11-1886

..... sutherland tenney, as the equitable assignees of joseph e. young & co., and for further relief. a demurrer to the bill for want of equity, for misjoinder of parties, and for multifariousness was filed by the defendants and was sustained for want of equity and the bill dismissed. the plaintiffs appealed to this court. mr. justice gray delivered the opinion of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1886 (PC)

Loke Nath Surma and ors. Vs. Keshab Ram Doss and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-19-1886

Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal147

mcdonell and beverley, jj.1. the circumstances of this case are fully net out in the decision of the lower appellate court.2. it is contended in second appeal that the district judge is wrong in law :(1) in dismissing the suit on the ground that different causes of action against different defendants separately have been joined together; and (2) in holding that a suit for a mere declaration of title without further relief is not maintainable under section 42 of the specific belief act.3. in deciding the first point, the judge has relied upon the full bench decision of the allahabad high court in the case of narsing das v. mdhgal dabi i.l.r. 5 all. 163 in which it was held that, where several distinct causes of action are alleged against distinct acts of defendants who are not jointly liable in respect of each and all of such causes of action, a suit against all the defendants jointly is bad in law.4. in the present case, however, it is contended that the cause of action alleged against all the defendants is one and the same, viz., a conspiracy on the part of all the defendants to keep the plaintiffs out of possession of their property; and we have been referred to the case of gajadhur pershad narain singh v. saheb roy 19 w.r. 203 where a number of ryots were held to have been properly sued in one and the same suit, on the allegation that they had fraudulently used a forged jamabandi paper with the view to support certain mokurari claims which they put forward, and thereby to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 1886 (PC)

Gowri Prosad Kundu and ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Sircar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-19-1886

Reported in : (1886)ILR13Cal159

mcdonell and beverley, jj.1. on appeal the additional judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation, but that it was bad on the second ground.against this latter finding, the plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal' and the respondents seek to uphold the decree of the lower appellate court on the ground of limitation. it is contended that they are not at liberty to do this, not having given notice to the other side under the provisions of section 561 of the code; but we think that, under the terms of that section, it was not necessary to give the appellants notice.2. the judge has disposed of the question of limitation, relying on the authority of the case of ram kishan v. bhawani dass i.l.r. 1 all. 333; but the circumstances of that case were different from those of the present, and the decision is, therefore, not applicable. in that case it was held that a suit to recover the sale proceeds paid away under an order of the judge, which was made without jurisdiction, was not a suit to set aside that order, inasmuch as the order itself was a nullity. but in the present case the order of distribution was made by a. court fully competent to make it, and was a good order until set aside.3. moreover, it is not easy to see how any relief could be granted to the plaintiffs without setting aside that order, and in fact the plaintiffs, virtually ask to have it set aside, because they ask as an alternative prayer in their plaint that, if they are found to be not entitled to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1886 (FN)

Mahomet Vs. Quackenbush

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-05-1886

..... v. county of cook, 28 ill. 543, decided in 1862, the "court has leaned rather in favor of the validity of private acts, when the subjects of the acts are multifarious." in that case, a provision in a law entitled "an act to amend an act entitled an act to incorporate the northwestern university,'" which prohibited "the sale of spirituous liquors .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //