Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.
This text of 18 N.W. 94 (Colstrum v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.) 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.
Opinion
That the facts stated in the complaint constitute a single cause of action is too plain to require argument. If, in demanding judgment both for the possession of the premises, and also for an injunction restraining the continuance of the trespass upon them, the prayer asks for inconsistent forms of relief, the remedy is by motion, and not by demurrer for misjoinder of different causes of action. The demand for judgment forms no part of the “cause of action.” Pomeroy on Remedies, §§ 452, 462; Durant v. Gardner, 19 How. Pr. 94.
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 N.W. 94, 31 Minn. 367, 1884 Minn. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colstrum-v-minneapolis-st-louis-railway-co-minn-1884.