Hopson v. Harrell

56 Miss. 202
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided April 15, 1878·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

56 Miss. 202 (Hopson v. Harrell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wherry v. Latimer
60 So. 563 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1912)