TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tennessee, A. & G. R. Co. v. Cavin

Tenn., A. & G. R. Co. v. Cavin, 77 So. 80 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Alabama Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 13, 1917
Docket
No. 7 Div. 460.
Judges
Brown
Citations
77 So. 8016 Ala. App. 2421917 Ala. App. LEXIS 285
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Action <&wkey;45(l) — Misjoinder oe Oauses. While it is not permissible to join several distinct causes of action in the same count, a complaint containing several counts, and stating different causes of action in each of several counts, is not demurrable as for a misjoinder of causes of action or “misjoinder of actions.” 2. Pleading <&wkey;64(2) — Duplicity. A count charging that on three different dates, naming them, the agents of defendant railroad acting within the line and scope of their authority, did negligently run its train of cars over and kill plaintiff’s fox dogs, is bad for uniting in one and the same count three distinct causes of action. 3. Pleading i&wkey;201 — Form op Demurrer — Misjoinder — “Distinctly Stated.” The objection that a count in a complaint contains three distinct causes of action is not, as required by Code 1907, § 5340, “distinctly stated,” in a demurrer a ground of which is “for that the said complaint shows a misjoinder of actions,” although the demurrer is “to the complaint and each count thereof.” 4. Appeal and Error &wkey;*525(l) — Bill op Exceptions — Instructions. Where neither the oral charge of the court nor the refused charges are set out in the record, in accordance with Acts 1915, p. 815, and appear only in the bill of exceptions, assignments of error, predicated on exceptions to the oral charge and the refusal of special charges, will not be considered.
Summary
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W. W. Plaralson, Judge. Action by Jud Cavin against the Tennessee, Alabama & Georgia Railway Company for damages for killing dogs. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The first count charges that on February 8 and 15, 1915, and on March 4, 1915, and on each of said dates, the agents or servants of defendant acting'within the line'and scope of their authority, did negligently run its said train of ears over and kill plaintiff’s said fox dogs, on said dates above set out. The other counts declare for the killing of one dog for each date mentioned therein.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Brown

BROWN, P. J.

[1]

While it is not permissible to join several distinct causes of action in the same count (Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Cofer, 110 Ala. 491 , 18 South. 110 ; Southern Ry. Co. v. McIntyre, 152 Ala. 223 , 44 South. 624 ), a complaint containing several counts and stating different causes of action in each of several counts is not demurrable as for a misjoinder of causes of action or “misjoinder of actions.”

[2, 3]

While the first count of the complaint is subject to the vice of uniting in one and the same count three distinct causes of action, the objection is not “distinctly stated” in the demurrers, the fifth ground of which is “for that the.said complaint shows a misjoinder of actions.” Code 1907, § 5340; Henley v. Bush, 33 Ala. 636 . And this is none the less true when we consider that the demurrer is “to the complaint and each count thereof.” The stated grounds of demurrer to the complaint were properly overruled.

[4]

The other assignments of error are predicated on exceptions to the oral charge of court and the refusal of special charges. Neither the oral charge of the' court nor the refused charges are set out in the record, and only appear in the bill of exceptions, and will not be considered. Carter v. State, 76 South. 468 ; Acts 1915, p. 815; Dempsey v. State, 15 Ala. App. 199 , 72 South. 773 .

No error appearing in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1918: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Chewning v. Knight77 So. 969 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)

Most recent

  1. Chewning v. Knight77 So. 969 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Dempsey v. State, 72 So. 773 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916) 20
Southern Ry. Co. v. McIntyre, 44 So. 624 (Ala. 1907) 10
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Cofer, 110 Ala. 491 (1895) 23
Henley v. Bush, 33 Ala. 636 (1859) 19
Carter v. State, 76 So. 468 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list