MASONITE CORPORATION v. STOCKMAN

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 29251.

Attorney(S)

Deavours Hilbun and Welch Cooper, all of Laurel, for appellant. The prevention of vexatious litigation and of a multiplicity of suits constitutes a favorite ground for the exercise of the jurisdiction of equity by way of injunction, and it may be laid down as a general rule that whenever the rights of a party aggrieved cannot be protected or enforced in the ordinary course of proceedings at law except by numerous and expensive suits, a court of equity may properly interpose and afford relief by injunction. Bishop Brothers v. Rosenbaum, 53 Miss. 84; Pollock v. Okolona Savings Institution, 61 Miss. 293; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Garrison, 32 So. 996. Where there is an injury continuing in its nature, which results in the bringing of numerous actions against a person, equity has intervened to prevent a multiplicity of suits. This is illustrated by the opinion of this court in Illinois Central R.R. Co. v. Garrison, 81 Miss. 257, 32 So. 996, 95 Am. St. Rep. 469, which is expressly distinguished from the principle laid down in Tribette v. Illinois Central R. Co., the distinguishing difference being the continuing nature of the injury, and the principle announced in Tribette's case was expressly recognized. Mills v. New Orleans Seed Co., 65 Miss. 391, 4 So. 298, 7 Am. St. Rep. 671; Cumberland Tel. Tele. Co. v. Williamson, 57 So. 559; Guice et al. v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 71 So. 259; Yazoo M.V.R.R. Co. v. McConnell, 90 So. 321; Griffith's Miss. Chancery Practice, page 462. The purpose of equity jurisdiction of multiplicity of suits, is to prevent expensive and vexatious litigation. The just procedure is for equity to restrain a multiplicity of suits and consolidate them into one suit in order to ascertain whether or not there was a valid defense. It is not just to force a defendant to try each suit separately in a law court simply because it did not appear to the chancery court that the defendant had a valid defense. Collins Collins, of Laurel, F.C. Hathorn, of Poplarville, and Currie Currie, of Hattiesburg, for appellees. The appellant was not entitled an injunction to restrain the prosecution of these separate suits, because there was no recognized ground of equitable interference nor any community of interest in the subject-matter, nor a common right or title involved. A community of interest merely in the question of law or fact involved is not sufficient to justify equitable interference. Tribbette v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 12 So. 32; Cumberland Tele. Tele. Co. v. Williamson, 57 So. 559; Turner v. Mobile, 135 Ala. 73, 33 So. 132; Ducktown Sulphur Co. v. Fain, 109 Tenn. 56, 70 S.W. 813; Southern Steel Co. v. Hopkins, 57 So. 11; 20 R.C.L., sec. 74, page 458, 4 C.J., par. 81 P. 465. The bill was clearly demurrable and was utterly insufficient to support the injunction, because it does not aver any defense whatever to the suits at law. Hamilton v. Power Company, 70 So. 739; Turner v. Mobile, 33 So. 132. Argued orally by Henry Hilbun, for appellant, and by N.T. Currie and Jeff Collins, for appellee.

Judges

Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

MASONITE CORPORATION v. STOCKMAN et al.

1. INJUNCTION. Complainant seeking to have several actions at law transferred to equity to prevent multiplicity of suits must allege meritorious defense.

Rule requiring complainant seeking to have law actions transferred to equity to prevent multiplicity of suits to allege that he has good and meritorious defense means that complainant must set out in his bill the facts showing such defense, it not being sufficient that he merely allege the conclusion of law of such defense.

2. INJUNCTION. Bill to transfer several actions at law to equity to prevent multiplicity of suits merely stating legal conclusion as to meritorious defense held insufficient.

Bill to transfer to equity several actions at law for damages, on account of the alleged pollution and poisoning of a stream, alleged, in substance, upon information and belief, that it had valid defense to actions at law, and to any other similar actions at law that might be brought against it on account of the alleged pollution of the stream.

Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellees herein, eleven in number, and each a separate riparian owner of lower lands on Tallahala creek in Jones county, brought their separate actions at law against appellant for damages on account of the alleged pollution and poisoning of said stream by appellant; and it is charged by the bill herein that many other riparian owners are preparing to institute similar separate actions at law.

Appellant thereupon exhibited its bill in equity against appellees, praying that the court of chancery take jurisdiction of said actions, and combine them into one suit for the prevention of a multiplicity of actions, the bill being bottomed upon the theory that the wrongs complained of by appellees are continuing in their nature. An injunction was granted on the bill. Appellees demurred and moved to dissolve on bill and demurrer. On the hearing the demurrer was sustained, and leave was offered appellant to amend its bill, which leave was declined. Thereupon the court dissolved the injunction and awarded damages.

It is a familiar and well-settled principle in our jurisprudence "that before a court of chancery will take jurisdiction in a matter of this character the complainant must allege in his bill . . . that he has a good and meritorious defense to the action at law. It is incumbent upon the complainant to set out in his bill . . . the facts showing such defense. It is not enough that he merely allege the conclusion of law of such defense." Welch v. Hannie, 112 Miss. 79, 87, 72 So. 861, 863, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 325; 32 C.J., pp. 320, 321. It would appear as axiomatic that, unless, in fact, there is a valid defense to the law actions, there could be no available equity in an application to chancery to restrain those actions. In recognition of this principle and as a gesture towards compliance with it, appellee inserted in its bill the following paragraph: "Complainant is advised and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that it has a valid defense to the actions at law as above set out, and to any other similar actions at law that may be brought against it on account of its alleged defilement and pollution of said stream."

The quoted paragraph contains every word that is found in the bill in relation to the defense to the said actions at law; and that it states nothing but a legal conclusion would seem to be too plain to require discussion. 10 Ency. Pl. Pr. pp. 925-927; Griffith Chan. Prac. secs. 175, 446. And since the bill fails at this point, the other questions argued by counsel do not come into view.

Affirmed.

MASONITE CORPORATION v. STOCKMAN et al.

Comments