Mumford v. Fitzhugh
This text of 18 Johns. 457 (Mumford v. Fitzhugh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court. The demurrer is to the whole declaration, and if either count be good, the demurrer cannot be sustained. The objection that the plaintiffs sue for a public nuisance, in the obstruction of a highway, is not applicable to the second count*, for it does not allege any obstruction of the highway.
On the second ground, however, the demurrer is well taken, for Carroll is made a defendant, although he has not 'been brought into court. This would be cured after verdict, as was decided in Rose v. Oliver and others ; (2 Johns. Rep. 367 ) but the objection is fatal on special demurrer. The case of Henly v. Broad, (1 Leon. 41.) is in point, and [459]*459it is not overruled by the cases in 1 Salk. 32. and 6 Term Rep. 766.
Judgment for the defendants, with leave to the plaintiffs to amend, on payment of costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 Johns. 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mumford-v-fitzhugh-nysupct-1821.