The reasoning in the two cases, when applied to these facts, is unanswerable. In the Cosgrave case the whole claim is founded on one transaction, the sale of two oxen, and it would have been a manifest abuse of the process of the court to split up the action and bring one action under the small debt procedure, and another action under the other procedure. But in Paradis v. Horton and the present case the facts are quite different. Here we have, not one cause of action or transaction, but distinct and separate causes of action, each one arising from transactions which have no connection with each other. The plaintiff is under no legal obligation to sue on, them all at the same time or in the same action.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.