Jones v. Tuttle

Supreme Court of Vermont

Jones v. Tuttle

54 Vt. 488

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedMarch 15, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 Vt. 488 (Jones v. Tuttle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Tuttle, 54 Vt. 488 (Vt. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Royce, Oh. J.

This cause was heard upon a general demurrer to the declaration. That there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs was apparent. To entitle a wife to join as a co-plaintiff with her husband, there must bo such allegations as show that she has an interest in the cause of action. It has been considered, since the case of Weller et al. v. Baker, 2 Wilson, 414, that when the wife joins as co-plaintiff with her husband, her interest in the cause of action must be expressly stated.

When the'misjoinder appears by the pleadings, advantage may be taken of it by demurrer Weller et al. v. Baker, supra; Chitty’s Pleadings 32; Baird & Wife v. Fletcher, 50 Vt. 603. Hence the demurrer should have been sustained, and the judgment overruling it is reversed.

The defendant excepted to the ruling of the court allowing the plaintiff to amend his declaration. Sec. 907, R. L., we think, confers the power upon the court to allow any proper amendment of the declaration to be made, after a general demurrer to the [489]*489declaration has been heard, and before the rendition of a final judgment. We have not been furnished with a copy of the amendment that the plaintiff was permitted to make,, but infer from the argument ’that it was by averring that the wife was the meritorious cause of action, or that she had an interest in the cause of action. It was settled in Myers & Wife v. Lyon & Co., 51 Vt. 272, that such amendments were proper to be allowed.

The exceptions to the ruling allowing 'the amendment to be made are overruled, and the cause remanded.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Royce, Oh. J.

This cause was heard upon a general demurrer to the declaration. That there was a misjoinder of plaintiffs was apparent. To entitle a wife to join as a co-plaintiff with her husband, there must bo such allegations as show that she has an interest in the cause of action. It has been considered, since the case of Weller et al. v. Baker, 2 Wilson, 414, that when the wife joins as co-plaintiff with her husband, her interest in the cause of action must be expressly stated.

When the'misjoinder appears by the pleadings, advantage may be taken of it by demurrer Weller et al. v. Baker, supra; Chitty’s Pleadings 32; Baird & Wife v. Fletcher, 50 Vt. 603. Hence the demurrer should have been sustained, and the judgment overruling it is reversed.

The defendant excepted to the ruling of the court allowing the plaintiff to amend his declaration. Sec. 907, R. L., we think, confers the power upon the court to allow any proper amendment of the declaration to be made, after a general demurrer to the [489]*489declaration has been heard, and before the rendition of a final judgment. We have not been furnished with a copy of the amendment that the plaintiff was permitted to make,, but infer from the argument ’that it was by averring that the wife was the meritorious cause of action, or that she had an interest in the cause of action. It was settled in Myers & Wife v. Lyon & Co., 51 Vt. 272, that such amendments were proper to be allowed.

The exceptions to the ruling allowing 'the amendment to be made are overruled, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Vt. 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-tuttle-vt-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack