Summary
stating that in New Hampshire pleading need merely put court and counsel on notice of dispute
Summary of this case from Pike Industries v. Hiltz ConstructionOpinion
No. 3938.
Decided November 17, 1950.
Where damages in an equitable proceeding are neither sought not granted, injunctive relief in such proceeding is no bar to law actions for damages resulting from the wrong enjoined. A declaration failing to state the theory upon which the plaintiff relies is bad on demurrer but may be amended if necessary for the prevention of injustice under the provisions of R. L., c. 390 s. 9.
ACTIONS OF CASE, by the plaintiffs, husband and wife, to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the defendant landlord. The plaintiffs occupied an apartment of the defendant in Nashua and the rent was payable weekly at a rate governed for the most part by federal rent control laws and regulations. The pleadings, as amended by the filing of additional counts in case and assumpsit, allege that the defendant on various dates shut off the heat, electricity and water which he furnished to the apartment. The pleadings also charge the defendant with long continued insults, and threatened assaults and other acts which interfered with their occupancy of the apartment. The defendant's demurrers to these pleadings in each action were overruled.
After the actions were originally brought the plaintiffs sought by bill in equity to enjoin the defendant from shutting off the water, heat and electricity. This injunction was granted. Thereafter the defendant was specifically ordered to furnish heat, repair a boiler, and to supply the plaintiffs with hot water. Finally on another petition of the plaintiffs the defendant was found in contempt for failure to comply with previous orders of the Court and was "ordered committed to county jail until a fine of $100.00 is paid."
The defendant's motions to dismiss the law actions because of the equitable proceedings were denied. Defendant's exceptions to the overruling of his demurrers and the denial of the motions to dismiss were reserved and transferred by Goodnow, C. J.
Karl E. Dowd and Albert Terrien (Mr. Terrien orally), for the plaintiffs.
Leonard Leonard (Mr. Richard W. Leonard orally), for the defendant.
The motions to dismiss were properly denied. The equity proceedings did not seek the recovery of damages and none were awarded. The fine imposed for contempt was in no sense an award of damages to the plaintiffs. Where damages in injunction proceedings are neither sought nor granted, the injunctive relief is not a bar to the law actions for damages on account of the thing enjoined. Woodbury v. Porter, 158 F.2d 194; Perdue v. Ward, 88 W. Va. 371. The use of equity to preserve the status quo is not necessarily a bar to a pending law action for damages formerly suffered. The equity proceedings were calculated to prevent the continuance of acts by the defendant which might constitute a constructive eviction of the plaintiffs but they did not constitute final adjudication of the plaintiffs' right to seek damages therefor. Cf. Brooks v. Howison, 63 N.H. 382, 389.
Pleadings ought to be simple, concise and indicate the theory on which the plaintiff is proceeding so that the opposing party can adequately defend. The defendant is entitled to be informed of the theory on which the plaintiffs are proceeding and the redress that they claim as a result of the defendant's actions. Under the liberal practice developed by Chief Justice Doe "emphasis will be placed on the simple merits of the controversy rather than the form of the pleadings in which they may be presented." Hackett v. Railroad, 95 N.H. 45, 46; Note, Doe of New Hampshire: Reflections on a Nineteenth Century Judge, 63 Harv. L. Rev. 513. It is probably no exaggeration to say that in no state is pleading treated more liberally and regarded as less of a game than in this jurisdiction. Here pleading is considered only a means to an end. The end is accomplished if counsel can understand the dispute and the court can decide the controversy on its merits. Tinkham v. Railroad, 77 N.H. 111, 112.
The plaintiffs' pleadings are lengthy with one declaration containing twenty-three counts, some of which are merely detailed statements of evidence. The declarations contain allegations which seem to allege breach of express convenants, violation of implied covenants for the quiet enjoyment of the leased premises, private nuisance, assaults and miscellaneous trespasses to the person involving impairment of health and peace of mind. Some allegations involve persons not parties to the action: "the keyhole to the outer door of the plaintiffs' apartment was filled with broken glass, as a result of which the plaintiffs' daughter cut her hand." Even under the liberal practice prevailing in this state, the plaintiffs have failed to state the theory on which they are proceeding. "It is impossible to ascertain from the declaration the nature of the action or the ground upon which it proceeds." Cassidy v. Richardson, 74 N.H. 221, 222.
Since the actions have not been tried and are here only on the pleadings, the plaintiffs may amend their declaration if it appears to the Superior Court "that it is necessary for the prevention of injustice." R. L., c. 390, s. 9; Meredith Mechanic Ass'n v. Company, 67 N.H. 450. Presumably the actions as amended can be consolidated for trim but this is a matter within the discretion of the Presiding Justice. Allbee v. Elms, 93 N.H. 202, 203, 204.
Exceptions to order denying dismissal overruled; demurrers sustained.
BLANDIN, J., did not sit; the others concurred.