
    MARY C. RANK, Respondent, v. AUGUSTUS H. GROTE, et al., Impleaded, Appellants.
    
      Pleading—duplication of cause of action in ejectment by stating two sources of title—when not objectionable.—Indefiniteness and redundancy, rule as to. ■
    
    Before, Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Ingraham, J.
    
      Decided May 16, 1883.
    Appeal by defendant from order denying his motion to strike out portion of the complaint as irrelevant, other portions as redundant, or that the same be made more definite and certain, or that the plaintiff be compelled to elect which cause of action he will prosecute.
    The action was in the nature'of ejectment. As a first cause of action plaintiff stated her title to be that of an heir at law of the former owner. As a second cause of action, she states her title to be that of devisee of the former owner. The statements in other respects, as to the cause of action, are' similar, and are sufficient in' such an action. The motion was to strike out, as irrelevant or redundant, the statement of the sources of title, and to compel the plaintiff make a statement of a single cause of action.
    The court at General Term, said: “The appellant is not aggrieved by the order below, for his preparation for trial would necessarily be the same, whether the amendments demanded were or were not made. He, if the superfluous matter were stricken out, would be forced to be prepared for any title the plaintiff might rest on, as heir or as devisee. The duplication of the causes of action does not lead to confusion or obscurity or additional labor.
    “ The order must be affirmed, but, as the pleading in. the complaint is unusual- and naturally led to the motion,; without costs.”
    
      G. W. Cotterill, for appellants.
    
      Redfield, Hill & Lydecker, for respondent.
   Opinion Per Curiam.

Order affirmed, without costs..  