Swift v. Eckford

Citations

• 6 Paige Ch. 22
• 1836 N.Y. LEXIS 223
• 1836 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>Where S. assumed the payment of E.’s debt to an incorporated company and conveyed lands by absolute deed, to one of the officers of the company, but the conveyance was only intended as a mortgage to secure the payment of the debt to the company, and the land was afterwards conveyed by the grantee to another officer of the company, who knew the object for which the first conveyance was made; Held, that the claim of S. against the personal reprerentatives of E., to be re-paid the debt thus assumed, was separate and distinct from his claim against the holder of the legal title to the land, and the company, to redeem the mortgage; and that the joinder of both claims in one suit rendered the complainant’s bill multifareous. It would have been otherwise if E. had agreed to pay the debt to the company, or to indemnify S. against liability on the mortgage.</p> <p>If a joint claim against two or more defendants is improperly joined in the same bill with a separate claim against one of the defendants only, in which the other defendants have no interest, and which is wholly unconnected with the claim against them, all or either of the defendants may demur to the whole bill for multifariousness.</p> <p>An amendment to a sworn bill by striking out allegations in the bill which the complainant has verified by his oath, will not be allowed by the court of chancery, except under very special circumstances.</p>