Palmer v. Inhabitants of Blaine

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Palmer v. Inhabitants of Blaine

98 A. 753, 115 Me. 287, 1916 Me. LEXIS 57

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedOctober 3, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 A. 753 (Palmer v. Inhabitants of Blaine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palmer v. Inhabitants of Blaine, 98 A. 753, 115 Me. 287, 1916 Me. LEXIS 57 (Me. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

King, J.

Action of assumpsit on account annexed containing sundry items, from an examination of which the inference is justifiable that they represent school supplies. Each defendant town demurred assigning as the cause that it had been declared against [288]*288jointly with the other two towns. The demurrers were sustained and the case is before this court on exceptions to that ruling.

The language of the declaration is: “for that the defendants at said Pittsfield on the date of the purchase of this writ was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of one hundred four dollars and seventy-seven cents, according to the account annexed, and then and there in consideration thereof promised the plaintiff to pay him said sum on demand.” The only point made in support of the demurrers is the misjoinder of the defendants, the contention being that a municipal corporation cannot incur a joint liability without express legislative authority, and that no such authority is alleged in the declaration.

But the declaration is sufficient to admit proof of a several liability of one of the defendants, and upon such proof being made judgment could be entered against that defendant, although a joint liability was not established. R. S., c. 84, sec. 98. The misjoinder of another party defendant is not a good ground of demurrer for a defendant against whom the declaration alleges a good cause of action on a several liability. Livermore v. County of Norfolk, 186 Mass., 133. In such a case a demurrer for the other defendant on the ground of misjoinder might be sustained, because the declaration shows that the cause of action is not against him. But that is not this case. Here it is not possible to determine, until the proof is made, against which of the defendant towns a several liability may be established. For that reason we think all of the demurrers should have been overruled.

Exceptions sustained.

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

King, J.

Action of assumpsit on account annexed containing sundry items, from an examination of which the inference is justifiable that they represent school supplies. Each defendant town demurred assigning as the cause that it had been declared against [288]*288jointly with the other two towns. The demurrers were sustained and the case is before this court on exceptions to that ruling.

The language of the declaration is: “for that the defendants at said Pittsfield on the date of the purchase of this writ was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of one hundred four dollars and seventy-seven cents, according to the account annexed, and then and there in consideration thereof promised the plaintiff to pay him said sum on demand.” The only point made in support of the demurrers is the misjoinder of the defendants, the contention being that a municipal corporation cannot incur a joint liability without express legislative authority, and that no such authority is alleged in the declaration.

But the declaration is sufficient to admit proof of a several liability of one of the defendants, and upon such proof being made judgment could be entered against that defendant, although a joint liability was not established. R. S., c. 84, sec. 98. The misjoinder of another party defendant is not a good ground of demurrer for a defendant against whom the declaration alleges a good cause of action on a several liability. Livermore v. County of Norfolk, 186 Mass., 133. In such a case a demurrer for the other defendant on the ground of misjoinder might be sustained, because the declaration shows that the cause of action is not against him. But that is not this case. Here it is not possible to determine, until the proof is made, against which of the defendant towns a several liability may be established. For that reason we think all of the demurrers should have been overruled.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A. 753, 115 Me. 287, 1916 Me. LEXIS 57, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-inhabitants-of-blaine-me-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack