Burgett v. Allen

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Burgett v. Allen

16 S.W. 573, 54 Ark. 560, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 104

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 6, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 16 S.W. 573 (Burgett v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burgett v. Allen, 16 S.W. 573, 54 Ark. 560, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 104 (Ark. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

tl0nThe complaint undertook to join with suits against the appellees causes of action against other defendants which had no possible legal connection with them. There was no error therefore in requiring the plaintiff to elect which of her causes she would prosecute. It was her duty to the court to file a plain and definite statement of what cause or causes she elected to prosecute. She did not do that, but filed a contradictory and ambiguous statement of what she elected to do; and when the court required her to make her election definite and certain, she refused to do so. It could not have been error therefore to dismiss the complaint as to the Allens.

2. Dismissal of action. But, after doing that, causes of action would have remained which had no legal connection. Though the court had authority to proceed to try them in the absence of objection by some defendant, it had a discretion also, in the interest of orderly proceeding and to prevent the confusion of issues, to compel the plaintiff to elect to prosecute only such causes as might properly be joined, and, if the plaintiff refused to make such election, to dismiss the complaint. It was not an abuse of discretion to do so in this case.

The order of dismissal was without prejudice to any cause of action attempted to be stated in the complaint, and leaves the plaintiff free to prosecute any of them she desires by a new action.

It must therefore be affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

tl0nThe complaint undertook to join with suits against the appellees causes of action against other defendants which had no possible legal connection with them. There was no error therefore in requiring the plaintiff to elect which of her causes she would prosecute. It was her duty to the court to file a plain and definite statement of what cause or causes she elected to prosecute. She did not do that, but filed a contradictory and ambiguous statement of what she elected to do; and when the court required her to make her election definite and certain, she refused to do so. It could not have been error therefore to dismiss the complaint as to the Allens.

2. Dismissal of action. But, after doing that, causes of action would have remained which had no legal connection. Though the court had authority to proceed to try them in the absence of objection by some defendant, it had a discretion also, in the interest of orderly proceeding and to prevent the confusion of issues, to compel the plaintiff to elect to prosecute only such causes as might properly be joined, and, if the plaintiff refused to make such election, to dismiss the complaint. It was not an abuse of discretion to do so in this case.

The order of dismissal was without prejudice to any cause of action attempted to be stated in the complaint, and leaves the plaintiff free to prosecute any of them she desires by a new action.

It must therefore be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.W. 573, 54 Ark. 560, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgett-v-allen-ark-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack