P sued Ds alleging that Ds, the two owners of adjoining property, simultaneously and concurrently committed negligence in their care of common walls, resulting in the collapse of P's warehouse. Had either of the Ds acted on the wall between them, nothing would have happened. But neither D acted. As a result, both Ds’ warehouses collapsed, as well as P’s. On Ds’ demurrer, the trial court held that there was a misjoinder of causes of action because the owners could be severally liable but never jointly liable. P appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.