Curry v. Stokes

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Curry v. Stokes

12 R.I. 52, 1878 R.I. LEXIS 13

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedFebruary 12, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 R.I. 52 (Curry v. Stokes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curry v. Stokes, 12 R.I. 52, 1878 R.I. LEXIS 13 (R.I. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Dubeee, C. J.

This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas by Samuel G. Curry and Geo. A. Richards, copartners in business under the firm of Curry & Richards; In that court the defendant recovered judgment. An appeal was taken by Curry alone in his individual name. When the case was called for trial in this court the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion was overruled. Upon trial the defendant recovered a verdict. The plaintiff Curry moves for a new trial for alleged misrulings. The defendant insists that the appeal was badly taken and that the plaintiff has no standing in this court. The first question therefore is, whether an appeal taken by one of two plaintiffs in a common law action is not ineffectual and void.

We think it is. The judgment is joint, not several. It is entire against both, and therefore can be appealed from only by both jointly, or, at the best, by one in the name of both. Even one of two defendants cannot, as a matter of course, appeal from a judgment rendered against both of them jointly. Wilkinson v. Gilchrist, 5 Ired. 228; Brown v. Gyre, 2 Overt. 189; Dunns, MaIlwaine & Co. v. Jones, Adm’r, 4 Dev. & B. 154 ; Todd et al. v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521; Young v. Ditto, 2 J. J. Mar. 72. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted. Motion granted.

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

Dubeee, C. J.

This action was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas by Samuel G. Curry and Geo. A. Richards, copartners in business under the firm of Curry & Richards; In that court the defendant recovered judgment. An appeal was taken by Curry alone in his individual name. When the case was called for trial in this court the defendant moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion was overruled. Upon trial the defendant recovered a verdict. The plaintiff Curry moves for a new trial for alleged misrulings. The defendant insists that the appeal was badly taken and that the plaintiff has no standing in this court. The first question therefore is, whether an appeal taken by one of two plaintiffs in a common law action is not ineffectual and void.

We think it is. The judgment is joint, not several. It is entire against both, and therefore can be appealed from only by both jointly, or, at the best, by one in the name of both. Even one of two defendants cannot, as a matter of course, appeal from a judgment rendered against both of them jointly. Wilkinson v. Gilchrist, 5 Ired. 228; Brown v. Gyre, 2 Overt. 189; Dunns, MaIlwaine & Co. v. Jones, Adm’r, 4 Dev. & B. 154 ; Todd et al. v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521; Young v. Ditto, 2 J. J. Mar. 72. The motion to dismiss is therefore granted. Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 R.I. 52, 1878 R.I. LEXIS 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-stokes-ri-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack