Hopson v. Harrell

Mississippi Supreme Court

Hopson v. Harrell

56 Miss. 202

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 Miss. 202 (Hopson v. Harrell) 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

Hopson v. Harrell, 56 Miss. 202 (Mich. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The attorney, Applewhite, was improperly made a defendant. No relief of any sort was prayed against him, — not even a discovery. But he does not object, and it is well settled that it is only the defendant who has been improperly joined that can demur for misjoinder. Story’s Eq. Pl., sect. 544; Cherry v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 618; Crane v. Deming, 7 Conn. 387; Butts v. Genung, 5 Paige, 256.

It follows that the demurrer interposed by defendant Har-rel was improperly sustained.

Decree reversed, demurrer overruled, and sixty days given for answers.

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

Chalmers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The attorney, Applewhite, was improperly made a defendant. No relief of any sort was prayed against him, — not even a discovery. But he does not object, and it is well settled that it is only the defendant who has been improperly joined that can demur for misjoinder. Story’s Eq. Pl., sect. 544; Cherry v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 618; Crane v. Deming, 7 Conn. 387; Butts v. Genung, 5 Paige, 256.

It follows that the demurrer interposed by defendant Har-rel was improperly sustained.

Decree reversed, demurrer overruled, and sixty days given for answers.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Miss. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopson-v-harrell-miss-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack