Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/427

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
JASPER v. HAZEN.
401

John W. Jasper, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur H. Hazen, Defendant and Appellant.

Pleading—Distinct Causes of Action—Demurrer.

The complaint sets out separately three causes of action. The first and second embody claims against the defendant as trustee under a voluntary trust arrangement between the parties, which is stated In both causes of action. The third cause of action is for taking possession of, collecting, and converting the proceeds of a promissory note belonging to the plaintiff and refusing to turn over the proceeds on demand. The defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it improperly united different causes of action, in this: that it united a claim at law against defendant for converting personal property, as stated in the third cause of action, with claims against defendant as trustee, as stated in the first and second causes of action. The demurrer was overruled by the district court. Held, that the ruling was error.

(Opinion Filed Feb. 15, 1892)

APPEAL from district court, Cass county; Hon. William B. McConnell, Judge.

A. C. Davis, for appellant. M. A. Hildreth (C. A. Pollock, of counsel), for respondent.

Action by John W. Jasper against Arthur H. Hazen to compel him to account for the proceeds of a farm and certain personal property. From an order overruling defendant’s demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Reversed.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Wallin, J. The complaint in this action contains three causes of action, and each is separately stated. The first cause of action is voluminous, but it need nut be set out in full in order to understand the questions involved on this appeal. The first cause of action is fairly summarized in appellant’s brief as follows: "Plaintiff having made to defendant an absolute conveyance of his farm to secure the latter against liability as plaintiffs bail, and defendant having been fully exonerated as such bail, plaintiff thereupon became entitled to a reconveyance; but, being in jail and unable to attend to his business affairs in per-