Opinion
7 Div. 867.
April 18, 1929. Rehearing Denied May 23, 1929.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R. B. Carr, Judge.
Chas. F. Douglas, of Anniston, for appellant.
The bill is not multifarious if it presents a common point of litigation affecting the whole subject-matter and settling the rights of all parties. 21 C. J. 419, 423. The object of the bill is single, and all appellees are proper parties. Code 1923, § 9905; Stacey v. Jones, 180 Ala. 231, 60 So. 823; Cooper v. Brown Son, 214 Ala. 400, 108 So. 20; Behan v. Friedman, 216 Ala. 478, 113 So. 538; Nixon v. Clear Creek L. Co., 150 Ala. 604, 43 So. 805, L.R.A. (N.S.) 1255; Smith v. Rhodes, 206 Ala. 460, 90 So. 349; Webb v. Butler, 192 Ala. 287, 68 So. 369, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 815; King v. Livingston Mfg. Co., 192 Ala. 269, 68 So. 897; Rowe v. Bank, 207 Ala. 384, 92 So. 643; Enterprise L. Co. v. Bank, 181 Ala. 388, 61 So. 930; Simonson v. Cain, 138 Ala. 221, 34 So. 1019; Randle v. Boyd, 73 Ala. 282. A party should be joined when without him complete justice could not be done. Hodge v. Joy, 207 Ala. 198, 92 So. 171; Smith v. Gaines, 210 Ala. 245, 97 So. 739. The terms of the statute are broad enough to cover the relief sought. Code 1923, § 6526; Dozier v. Farrior, 187 Ala. 181, 65 So. 364; Kelly v. Carmichael, 217 Ala. 534, 117 So. 67.
John D. Bibb and R. M. Woolf, of Anniston, for appellees.
A party may not be brought into equity and deprived of legal defenses incident to an action at law, where the remedy at law is adequate. 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1065, note; Brauer v. Laughlin, 235 Ill. 265, 85 N.E. 283; Collier v. Collier (N.J. Ch.) 33 A. 193; Robertson v. Hogshead, 3 Leigh (Va.) 667; Mitchell v. Dowell, 105 U.S. 430, 26 L.Ed. 1142; Pond v. Lockwood, 8 Ala. 669; Bryan v. Cowart, 21 Ala. 92; Hunt v. Jones, 203 Ala. 541, 84 So. 718; Brown v. Sheridan, 185 Ala. 122, 64 So. 68; Bromberg v. Eugenotto Const. Co., 158 Ala. 323, 48 So. 60, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1175; Lowery v. May, 213 Ala. 66, 104 So. 5. Where the only ground for equitable relief fails, the court is without jurisdiction to retain the bill for the purpose of settling matters determinable at law. Authorities, supra. A bill to quiet title and asking in the alternative for damages for breach of warranty against another party is multifarious. Code 1923, § 6526; Henry v. Tenn. L. S. Co., 164 Ala. 376, 50 So. 1029.
The bill is to quiet title and charges that one Haynes is setting up a claim to or upon the land involved. The bill also avers that the complainant claims title under a deed from the Herrens and that Haynes claims under a lien or title against the Herrens prior to his said deed. The Herrens were therefore proper, if not necessary, parties to the cause, and the bill was not subject to demurrer as for improper parties. Smith v. Gaines, 210 Ala. 245, 97 So. 739.
The Herrens being the common source of title of complainant, and the title or claim of the principal respondent, they should be given the opportunity to make good their warranty by giving evidence to defeat the adverse claim, or by removing such incumbrance, if sustained.
It is true that when the equity of a bill fails, it cannot be retained for granting relief available at law. Note 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) page 1065, Brauer v. Laughlin, 235 Ill. 265, 85 N.E. 283; Collier v. Collier (N.J. Ch.) 33 A. 193; Pond v. Lockwood, 8 Ala. 669; Bromberg v. Eugenotto Const. Co., 158 Ala. 323, 48 So. 60, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1175. But it does not follow that the equity of a statutory bill to quiet title has failed by an adjudication that respondent Haynes has a superior lien or claim. The purpose of the statute is to adjudicate adverse claims. If the complainant avers and proves the jurisdictional facts prescribed by the statute, he is entitled to have respondent's title set up and adjudicated. This is the relief prayed, and the purpose of the bill is obtained, whether the adverse claim is held good or bad. It follows that in the event such claim is held good, the court of equity should proceed to grant such further relief against any party properly brought before the court in adjudicating the adverse claim, as may be required to do complete justice, whether such additional relief may be had by separate action at law.
We think the bill presents a case well within the beneficial provisions of the statute, and seeks an opportunity to adjudge the rights and obligations of all parties in one suit.
Moreover, it is conceded that the bill states equity and prays for proper relief, and the fact that it may pray for further though unwarranted relief would not subject it to demurrer. This is redundant matter which should be disregarded. Wilks v. Wilks, 176 Ala. 151, 57 So. 776; Rosenau v. Powell, 173 Ala. 123, 55 So. 789.
The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the bill and a decree is here rendered overruling the same, and the decree of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Reversed, rendered, and remanded.
GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.