Berg v. Stanhope

45 N.W. 15, 43 Minn. 176, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 144
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedApril 24, 1890
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 N.W. 15 (Berg v. Stanhope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berg v. Stanhope, 45 N.W. 15, 43 Minn. 176, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 144 (Mich. 1890).

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.1

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. One ground of demurrer was that several causes of [177]*177action are improperly united. The complaint contains three counts, all alike so far as obnoxious to the above ground of demurrer. Each alleges a request by defendant Stanhope to do certain work, and a promise by him to pay for it, and a separate promise by defendant Patterson to pay for the same work. No joint employment or promise is alleged. In other words, a separate cause of action against each defendant, but no joint cause of action against both, is alleged-

The case comes within the decision in Trowbridge v. Forepaugh, 14 Minn. 100, (133,) in which it was held that the statute forbids thejoinder of causes of action which do not affect all the parties. The-liability of each defendant depends on the contract or promise of himself, to which the other was not a party, and by which he was notf affected.

Order reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jones v. Balsley
1910 OK 276 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1910)
Hanna v. Duxbury
101 N.W. 971 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1904)
Spencer v. Candelaria Waterworks & Milling Co.
118 F. 921 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 N.W. 15, 43 Minn. 176, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-v-stanhope-minn-1890.