
    Hannah Taylor v. Charles B. King and others.
    
      JEqu&ty pleading and practice: Distinct and discordant interests: Multifariousness. A "bill in equity wliiclx seeks to bring into question and have adjudicated distinct and discordant interests is held demurrable for multifariousness.
    
      Equity pleading and practice: Partition: Parties. A partition bill which discloses that persons not made parties.have like interests with those set np by the complainant -is held demurrable for want of parties.
    
      Heard April 22.
    
    
      Decided April 27.
    
    Appeal In Chancery from Jaclcson Circuit.
    This was a bill for partition. The defendants appear from the bill to claim interests which are distinct in separate parcels of the land' of • which partition is sought. The bill also discloses that persons not made parties have like interests jn the-lands with those which the -complainant claims to hold. Demurrers were interposed- directed towards these- and some other defects, and they were sustained below and complainant appealed. ■
    
      George C. Worth, for complainant: ■
    
      Thomas A. Wilson and Higby. & Gibson, for defendants.
   Per Curiam:

The .court below dismissed the bill on demurrer, and complainant appealed.

The decree was proper. The bill attempted to bring' into question and have adjudicated distinct and discordant interests, and was liable to complaint for multifariousness. Besides, on the theory on which it proceeded, it was defective' for want of parties.

Other objections do not require to be noticed.

The decree should be affirmed, with costs.  