CUMUL DE CAUSES D'ACTION

SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 18th september 1872. Present : MACKAY, J.

GRIFFIN vs MOLSON et «al.

Head: That plaintiff was not bound to make option between the causes of action demande;

That the ordinance of 1667 was favourable to joining together several causes of action,

MackaY, J.: In this case there were some forty defendants, of whom twelve have pleuded, six by dilatory plens, and the rest by demurrers. Plaintiff complains of" certain transactions of defendants, Molson and others, in connection with the Moisie Company, à company which worked an iron mine down the river. - The company, which at first promised

well, got into diffieulties ; and plaintiff charged improper conduct against Molson, alleging that the shareholders were cajoled by him. And that Molson, by suits against the company,, judgments fraudulent and executions, had obtained all of the company's property at a very small part of its value, The allegation of the declaration is that all was contrived by Molson, for the purpose of enriching himself. There were also charges of, mismanagement, etc. The conclusions were that the Moisic Company should be held to be dissolved and a curator appointed to it; as to damages, paintiff claimed them from certain of the defendants only ; he asked also that the suits and executions complained of should be declared null and Molson condemned to pay deficiency mentioned of $200,000, money unpaid on his shares of stock. To this action, some of the defendants, as already mentioned, ha pleaded by exceptions dilatory and others by demurrers. The reasons Of each set of the exceptions were pretty much alike, the principal ground of dilatory exception being that incompatible grounds of action had been joined and that defendants had been improperly sued together by the same section. Each of defendants seemed to insist on beina sued separately. The court was against defendants on this point, and held that plaintitf was not bound to make option between the causes of action as demanded, The ordinance of 1667 was favourable to joining together several causes of action. The exceptions dilatory would, therefore, each, be dismissed, with costs Upon the demurrers the court was also with plaintiff The declaration was not bad. It was quite right to call on the various defendants therein named. Had plaintitf not served them with process, they might have intervened ; as to those of defendants against whom no charges of fraud are,they are all stockhol: lers in the Moisie C ompany to which plaintiff asks n curator to be appointed. Surely this interests each stockholder. Where was the impropriety of serving them with notice; not asking them to pay costs ? Plaintitf just seeined to say this: ‘ Come in and take notice “of what Lam doing, or hold your peace.” The thing did not seem unreasonuble, The demurrers would, therefore, be dismissed, (3 R. C., 71.)

LaArI

from of w havit hyh.

well price delive hable being The c with C,, 72