GAMEWELL FIRE-ALABM TEL. 00. V: CITY 01" CHILLICOTHB. 353 �may be regtrained and enjoined provisionally and perpetually, by the order and injunction of this honorable court, firom directly or indirectly mafcing, constructing, using, vending, delivering, working, or putting into prac- tioe, operation, or use, or in anywise counterteiting or imitating, the said inventions, or any part thereof, or any flre-alann apparatus made in accordance therewith, or like or similar to those which it is now, using." A demurrer'is flied to the bill for multifariouaness,.in this: "that the same sets f orth several and unconnected grants of letters patent to va- rions persons, covering distinct inventions, and asks relief for the alleged infringement thereof jointly." �Jeptka D. Garrard, for complainant. �Banning e Davidson and L. M. Hosea, for defendant. �Swing, D. J. The rule of pleading as to multifariousness is founded on convenienee^convenience to the defendant. McLean, Assignee, v. Bank of Lof ayette, 4 MeLean, 418; Fel- lows V. Fellows, 4 Cow. 682.^ �This rule forbids the joining of distinct and independent matters in one bill, and thereby confounding them; as, for example, the uniting in one bill of several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant; or the de- mand of several matters of different natures against several defendants in the same bill. Story's Eq. PI. 271 ; Mitford's Eq. PI. 181. �Whether this rule applies to any particular bill or not is a question of fact^ — of fact, as to the nature and extent of inter- est of the complainant, or some of the complainants, in the causes of action; or of the defendant, or some of the defend- ants, as to the nature of the causes of action, whether they are distinct in character as well as independent in form, asto the scope of the relief prayed. Story's Eq. PI. .538, 540, 280. To lay down any rule applicable to all cases cannot well be done. Id. 539. �The cases upon the subject are various, and the courts, in deciding them, seem to have considered what was convenient under particular circumstances, rather thanto have laid down any absolute rule. Campbell v. Mackay, 1 Mylne & Craig, 603. But it may be drawn from the cases, and is in accord- ance with the reasou of the rule, that the test of multifa- riousness is : What is the burden imposed on the defendant? to what def ence is he forced ? can he make one defeuce to the �■v.7,no.3— 23 ��� �
