In equity pleading. The fault of improperly joining In one hill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them; as, for ex-ample, the uniting in one bill of several mat-ters perfectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant, or the demand of sev-eral matters of a distinct and independent nature against several defendants, ln the same bill. Story, Eq. PL S 271. And see Harrison v. Perea, 168 U. S. 311, 18 Sup. Ct 129, 42 I* Ed. 478; wales v. Newbould, 9 Mich. 56; Bovalrd ?. Seyfang, 200 Pa. 261, 49 Atl. 958; Bolles v. Bolles, 44 N. J. Eq. 385, 14 Atl. 593; Perkins v. Baer, 95 Mo. App. 70, 68 S. W. 939; Thomas v. Mason, 8 G1U (Md.) 1; Rarcus v. Gates, 89 Fed. 783, 32 C. C. A. 337; McGlothlin v. Hemery, 44 Mo. 350