
    (46 South. 206.)
    No. 16,778.
    BREAUX BRIDGE LUMBER CO., Limited, v. HEBERT et al.
    (March 30, 1908.
    Rehearing Denied April 27, 1908.)
    1. Parties — Joinder — Trespass—Joint and Several Liability — Presumption op Separate Liability.
    In an action for trespass against two defendants, where nothing in the petition shows that the defendants were joint trespassers, an exception of misjoinder will be sustained.
    
      2. Pleading — Construction Against Pleader.
    Solidary liability is not presumed, and pleadings are construed against the pleader.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, § 66.]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal from Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Martin; James Simon, Judge.
    Action by the Breaux Bridge Lumber Company, Limited, against Edward Hebert and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Martin, Voorhies & Martin, for appellant. James Edmond Mouton, for appellees. Francis Ernest De Lahoussaye, amicus curiae.
   PROVOSTX, J.

The plaintiff company brings this suit against two defendants in trespass. It is not possible to ascertain from the petition whether it is claimed that in their alleged trespass the defendants acted together or separately. The allegation is simply that they have trespassed upon plaintiff’s land by cutting down and removing timber. The prayer is simply for an injunction, and for judgment against the defendants for $1,000, with nothing said as to solidary liability.

The court sustained an exception of misjoinder, based on the failure of the petition to allege that the defendants were joint trespassers, or even to pray for judgment against them in solido; so that, for all that appears, defendants may have been separate, and not joint, trespassers.

Solidary liability is not presumed, and pleadings are construed against the pleader. The pleader is presumed to have made his pleadings as strong as he could. 4 E. of P. & P. p. 746. The presumption is, therefore, that the defendants were separate trespassers; and, such being the case, they were improperly joined in one suit.

Judgment affirmed.  