2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 898 - Pleading
Section 52-97 - Union of legal and equitable causes of action; limitation.

In any civil action the plaintiff may include in his complaint both legal and equitable rights and causes of action, and demand both legal and equitable remedies; but, if several causes of action are united in the same complaint, they shall all be brought to recover, either (1) upon contract, express or implied, or (2) for injuries, with or without force, to person and property, or either, including a conversion of property to the defendant’s use, or (3) for injuries to character, or (4) upon claims to recover real property, with or without damages for the withholding thereof, and the rents and profits of the same, or (5) upon claims to recover personal property specifically, with or without damages for the withholding thereof, or (6) claims arising by virtue of a contract or by operation of law in favor of or against a party in some representative or fiduciary capacity, or (7) upon claims, whether in contract or tort or both, arising out of the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action. The several causes of action so united shall all belong to one of these classes, and, except in an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or lien, shall affect all the parties to the action, and not require different places of trial, and shall be separately stated; and, in any case in which several causes of action are joined in the same complaint, or as matter of counterclaim or set-off in the answer, if it appears to the court that they cannot all be conveniently heard together, the court may order a separate trial of any such cause of action or may direct that any one or more of them be expunged from the complaint or answer.

(1949 Rev., S. 7819; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 174.)

History: 1959 act deleted reference to actions brought before a justice of the peace.

In action based on absolute guaranty there is no obligation on part of creditor to first proceed against principal debtor; two causes of action not improperly joined. 2 CS 153. Consolidation of action discussed. 3 CS 168. A transaction is something quite apart from a “right of action” and something more comprehensive than a “cause of action.” It is something which has taken place whereby a cause of action has arisen. 5 CS 174. Cited. Id., 391. Joinder of tort and contract action in one complaint permitted. 6 CS 488. Proper joinder of a negligence action against two defendants and a conspiracy to defraud action against three. 7 CS 45. Cited. 8 CS 218. Cause of action upon events culminating in the execution and delivery of a deed and an action arising from a trespass on the same real estate cannot properly be joined. 12 CS 306. Separate causes of action arising out of the same transaction must be stated in separate counts. 13 CS 314. Joinder of two separate causes of action, each against a different defendant, not permitted. Cited. 14 CS 29; Id., 350. Action for divorce and one for property conveyed in consideration of marriage are properly joined. 15 CS 78. An action for annulment on grounds of insanity and one for divorce on grounds of insanity are properly joined. Id., 89. Quaere whether action for declaratory judgment of illegitimacy may be joined with an action for divorce. 16 CS 70. Where two defendants sold cosmetic preparations to the plaintiff who was injured thereby and it appeared in the complaint that the plaintiff was unable before trial to determine the harm caused by the product sold by one or the other, there was proper joinder. 17 CS 32. Breach of warranty is based “upon contract, express or implied.” Id. Action against city under statute for defective sidewalk and against another defendant for nuisance can be joined but claim must be in alternative. 22 CS 74, 76. Cited. Id., 474. (2) Applies to a plaintiff in the singular. Id.; 23 CS 94. (7) Remedy for misjoinder of causes is taken by demurrer. Id., 93. Claims for a divorce under complaint and cross complaint, each on the ground of intolerable cruelty, and claim for past support under proposed amendment to the cross complaint arise out of the same transaction, namely, the marital relationship of the parties. Id., 352. There was a misjoinder of causes of action where plaintiff, in two counts of malpractice, alleged the negligent performance of two unrelated operations a year apart. 25 CS 404, 405. Terms of section inapplicable to special statutory proceeding, such as tax appeal under section 12-118, but misjoinder may apply to such statutory appeals. 32 CS 140. Cited. 36 CS 47; Id., 56. Cited. 38 CS 389.

Court held it not permissible to join action concerned with vilification by plaintiff’s agent in attempting to collect on a promissory note with action on note as not arising out of same transaction. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 218. Joinder of second count, under implied contract or for reasonable value of services rendered to defendant, to complaint based on express contract was permissible under subsections (1) and (7) where parties were same and causes of action arose out of same transaction. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 542.