Camp v. McGillicuddy

10 Iowa 201
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided December 20, 1859·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Weight, C. J.

We see no error in this ruling. There are cases in which it is proper and necessary to make a person defendant to a proceeding in equity, upon the ground of avoiding a multiplicity of suits. His rights may not be directly affected by the decree, but it may occur that if the complainant succeeds, the respondent will thereby acquire a right to call upon the party omitted or not joined, either to reimburse him, or reinstate him in the position lost by the complainant’s success. And if so, the person consequentially liable to be thus affected, should be before the court that his liability may be adjudicated by one proceeding. 1 Danl. Ch. 329; Story’s Eq. PI. section 173 ; Niser v. Blackley, 3 John. Ch. 437.

Applying this rule, we think it was proper to direct Moore to be made a party. If complainant succeeds, Moore will be liable to McGillicuddy, either upon the covenants of his deed or to correct the mistake, by conveying to him the proper tract of land. So if there was no mistake upon a proper [203]*203bill, be might be liable to complainant, or his immediate grantee, Douglass.

Order sustaining the demurrer affirmed.

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

Camp v. McGillicuddy, 10 Iowa 201 (iowa 1859).

10 Iowa 201 (Camp v. McGillicuddy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sando v. Roberts
156 N.W. 64 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1916)
City of El Reno v. El Reno Water Co.
1904 OK 20 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1904)
Independent School District No. 3 v. Gunn
61 N.W. 417 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1894)
Gerson v. Hanson
34 Kan. 590 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1886)
Branson v. Oregonian Railway Co.
11 Or. 161 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1883)