Jones v. Hughes

16 Wis. 683
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1863
StatusPublished

This text of 16 Wis. 683 (Jones v. Hughes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jones v. Hughes, 16 Wis. 683 (Wis. 1863).

Opinion

By the Court,

Dixon, C. J.

The complaint is not indefinite or uncertain. The counsel for the defendant experience no difficulty in understanding the full extent and scope of the plaintiff’s claim. They say that he alleges four distinct causes of action, three at law, and one in equity; and the point of their objection is, that it is uncertain whether they are to plead in law or equity. The objection then, if it has any significance, is, that the causes of action are improperly united, the exclusive remedy for which is by demurrer. R. S., ch. 125, sec. 4, sub. 5 and secs. 8, 9; 2 Whit. Pr., (3d ed.), 673; Wright vs. Storrs, 6 Bosw., 609. According to the authority of New York Ice Co. vs. North Western Ins. Co., 23 N. Y., 357; Phillips vs. Gorham, 17 N. Y., 270, and Marquat vs. Marquat, 2 Kern., 336, there is no misjoinder; but that is a question requiring no expression of opinion, since it can only arise on demurrer.

Order affirmed.

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

Related

Phillips v. . Gorham
17 N.Y. 270 (New York Court of Appeals, 1858)
The New York Ice Company v. . North Western Insurance Co.
23 N.Y. 357 (New York Court of Appeals, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 Wis. 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hughes-wis-1863.