From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

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

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Nov 13, 1917
77 So. 80 (Ala. Crim. App. 1917)

Opinion

7 Div. 460.

November 13, 1917.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by Jud Cavin against the Tennessee, Alabama Georgia Railway Company for damages for killing dogs. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

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 cars 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.

Hugh M. Reed, of Center, for appellant. R.F. Conner and C.B. Sims, both of Center, for appellee.


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 So. 110; Southern Ry. Co. v. McIntyre, 152 Ala. 223, 44 So. 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."

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.

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 So. 468; Acts 1915, p. 815; Dempsey v. State, 15 Ala. App. 199, 72 So. 773.

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

Affirmed.


Summaries of

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

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Nov 13, 1917
77 So. 80 (Ala. Crim. App. 1917)
Case details for

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

Case Details

Full title:TENNESSEE, A. G. R. CO. v. CAVIN

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Nov 13, 1917

Citations

77 So. 80 (Ala. Crim. App. 1917)
77 So. 80

Citing Cases

Yearwood v. French

J. G. Rankin, of Athens, for appellant. All actions ex delicto may be joined in the same suit. Code 1923, §…

United Security Life Insurance Co. v. St. Clair

Prudential Ins. Co. v. Calvin, 227 Ala. 146, 148 So. 837. Attempt to allege two separate and distinct losses,…