Henry v. Henderson

Mississippi Supreme Court

Henry v. Henderson

79 Miss. 452

DecidedOctober 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 79 Miss. 452 (Henry v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry v. Henderson, 79 Miss. 452 (Mich. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Whitfield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The code 1892, § 547, expressly provides that that form of multifariousness which consists in joining in one bill several distinct and disconnected matters against the same defendants, shall not be a ground of objection to the bill. ThisQhas been [455]*455held to be a statutory abolition of this form of multifariousness as a ground of demurrer. Insurance Co. v. Humphries, 64 Miss., 258, 1 So. Rep., 232. There is but one defendant here, sued in one capacity. But, aside from this, the chief object of this bill was to secure a construction of the will, in which construction all the parties were interested. Such a construction was necessary to determine their respective rights. In no proper sense could the bill be called multifarious, independently of -the statute.

Reversed, demurrer overruled, and thirty da/ys given to answer from the filing of the mandate in the court T>elow.

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

Whitfield, O. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The code 1892, § 547, expressly provides that that form of multifariousness which consists in joining in one bill several distinct and disconnected matters against the same defendants, shall not be a ground of objection to the bill. ThisQhas been [455]*455held to be a statutory abolition of this form of multifariousness as a ground of demurrer. Insurance Co. v. Humphries, 64 Miss., 258, 1 So. Rep., 232. There is but one defendant here, sued in one capacity. But, aside from this, the chief object of this bill was to secure a construction of the will, in which construction all the parties were interested. Such a construction was necessary to determine their respective rights. In no proper sense could the bill be called multifarious, independently of -the statute.

Reversed, demurrer overruled, and thirty da/ys given to answer from the filing of the mandate in the court T>elow.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Miss. 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-henderson-miss-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack