Definition
In equity pleading and civil procedure, a pleading, bill, or complaint is multifarious when it improperly joins distinct, independent matters or parties in a single proceeding. The objection of multifariousness challenges the structural integrity of the pleading itself: the complaint attempts to litigate multiple unrelated causes of action or combines claims against parties who have no sufficient legal or factual connection to one another.
Multifariousness is not a minor technical defect. It strikes at whether a single proceeding is the proper vehicle for the claims assembled within it. A bill found to be multifarious may be dismissed entirely or required to be split into separate proceedings.
Two distinct types of multifariousness are recognized in the historical authorities:
1. Party multifariousness: A single pleading joins parties whose interests are legally separate and unconnected, such that litigating their claims together would be unjust or confusing.
2. Subject-matter multifariousness: A single pleading joins wholly distinct and unrelated causes of action or transactions that have no common thread sufficient to sustain their joinder.
---
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Having great diversity or variety; of various kinds; made up of many differing parts.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Having multiplicity; having great diversity or variety; of various kinds; diversified; made up of many differing parts; manifold.
In ordinary English, "multifarious" is a complimentary or neutral descriptor meaning richly varied or manifold. In law, the same word carries a critical negative charge: a multifarious pleading is defective precisely because it contains too many varied, unrelated matters. The legal objection converts the common word's neutral meaning into a ground for dismissal.
---
Common Confusion
Multifariousness is frequently confused with misjoinder, and the terms are often used interchangeably in older equity practice. The distinction matters: misjoinder is the broader procedural concept covering improper joinder of parties or claims under either law or equity; multifariousness is the specific equity-side objection to a bill that improperly combines distinct matters or parties. All multifarious bills involve a form of misjoinder, but not all misjoinder objections rest on multifariousness. In modern federal practice, Rule 20 and Rule 18 joinder standards have largely displaced the equity objection, but the underlying analytical question — whether claims or parties belong in the same proceeding — remains structurally similar.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in equity cases before the merger of law and equity will encounter multifariousness as a live and frequently litigated procedural objection. In chancery practice, a defendant could demur to a bill solely on the ground that it was multifarious, and courts treated the objection with varying degrees of strictness. Some nineteenth-century equity courts dismissed bills with relative ease on this ground; others recognized its potential for abuse as a dilatory tactic and applied it narrowly.
The critical trap for historical researchers: the doctrinal content of multifariousness was never fully settled. Courts disagreed about how much factual connection between claims was sufficient to defeat the objection, and equity treatise writers acknowledged openly that no precise rule existed. A uniform rule was impossible in practice because the question was ultimately one of judicial discretion. This means that citing a single historical case or treatise passage as stating the rule is likely to mislead — the authorities are genuinely inconsistent.
After the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect in 1938, merging law and equity in federal courts, the equity-specific objection of multifariousness lost its independent procedural footing. Modern joinder doctrine under Rules 18, 20, and 42 serves analogous functions but operates under different standards and with different default presumptions (modern rules favor permissive joinder; historical equity courts were more restrictive). Researchers analyzing cases that straddle this transition should be careful not to import modern joinder analysis backward into pre-merger equity proceedings, or vice versa.
State court systems that maintained separate equity jurisdiction longer than federal courts may have preserved multifariousness doctrine well past 1938. Research in states with historically robust chancery systems — Delaware being the most significant example — should account for this.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill's Law Dictionary provides the foundational entry: a multifarious pleading is one "composed of a variety of distinct and independent matters," with a cross-reference to the substantive entry on Multifariousness. This is accurate as far as it goes but is characteristic of the compressed style of nineteenth-century legal dictionaries — it states the definition without engaging the doctrinal difficulty.
What Burrill omits, and what any researcher should understand, is the degree to which courts and equity treatise writers struggled to operationalize the definition. The distinction between matters that are "distinct and independent" (multifarious) and matters that are sufficiently connected to be joined (permissible) was contested throughout the nineteenth century. Leading equity treatises of the period, including Story's Commentaries on Equity Pleading, acknowledged that the line was difficult to draw and that courts had not established a consistent standard.
Wiktionary's legal sub-definition captures both dimensions of the doctrine — improper joinder of parties and improper joinder of subject matter — which is a more complete statement than Burrill's single-sentence entry.
---
Jurisdictional Note
In federal courts, the independent equity objection of multifariousness was effectively absorbed into Rules 18, 20, and 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after 1938. State courts with surviving equity jurisdiction, particularly Delaware's Court of Chancery, may still encounter the concept in its historical form when interpreting older precedents. Researchers should not assume that a modern court applying joinder doctrine is applying the same analytical framework as a nineteenth-century equity court ruling on multifariousness.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See: Misjoinder; Equity Pleading; Parties in Equity
---