Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Case: Akely et al. v. Kinnicutt et al. (1924, NY) [App.


Parties: Plaintiff - Akely (respondent)

Defendant - Kinnicutt (appellant)

Procedural History:

Facts: 193 plaintiffs (investors) brought an action against D, who issued a

intentionally fraudulent prospectus that described the assets of their company,
which induced people to buy stock at a much higher price than its actual value.
The investors joined their causes of action in one action. D motioned the trial
court to separate the actions into 193 separate claims. Trial court dismissed the
motion, and D appeals.

Issue: Whether the 193 separate actions can be joined into one action. Yes.

Holding: Trial court dismissal affirmed. The 193 claims can be joined.

Reasoning: the 193 actions can be joined as a separate claim as long as:
○ Each of the claims arose out of the same transaction or series of
transactions, so as to permit joinder under Civil Practice Act, §209.
○ It is not in violation of the US constitution (Art 1 & 2 - right to a jury
trial) because preventing defendant from a right to a new jury for each cause of
action, because so long as the right of jury trial is preserved, the details of
the method of right to a jury trial is largely suject to legislative discretion.
Further, the joinder of the investors' claims would not embarrass or delay the
trial of the action but instead, would facilitate it.



• All 193 Ps, have joined together on one complaint to allege D cheated them.
• These are not 193 separate lawsuits, but Ps have all suffered the same injury.
• Why would P prefer to set it up all together, rather than individually?
○ Efficiency (cheaper - someone has to write all the claims, and court fees,
and easier for judicial system)
○ More leverage to try to force a settlement
§ partly b/c more press
§ Partly b/c more likely to get a settlement b/c as a matter of proof,
193 ppl more persuasive to jury rather than just 1
□ Knowing that this is likely to be the effect on the jury, D
more likely to settle
• As counsel for D, will argue that P cant do this (b/c of the effect on the
○ You would say "the 193 Ps are not claiming damages from the same
transaction or occurrence were defrauded, if at all, in a diff time and place for
○ There has to be some trade-off btwn efficiency and individual damages
• The reality is that both sides are right
○ Could be one transaction or 193 transactions.
○ Plausible argument of whether the questions of fact are common to all 193
• So, as a judge rather than saying it is same transaction, you step back and
think about the purpose of why we're here - public policy - get the efficiency
benefits of trying the claims together. On the other hand, the dangers of spill-
over effects, and that individual justice will not be done if only 5 of the 193
were actually defrauded.
○ So court of appeals say - yes, there are some questions of law in common,
and some not.
§ One fraudulent scheme to defraud the public, and then individual
○ So, court looks at how this balances out, and have to conclude that
overwhelming amount of judicial time will go to same questions, but there is a
duty to maintain diligence to avoid the prejudice.
§ Can go on same complaint, and then if necessary at a later point,
separate them.
○ What is court trying to do with this rule - getting the efficiency, etc.
○ Benefits of efficiency outweigh dangers of prejudice.