Pennington v. Thomason

1 Thompson 37, 1 Shan. Cas. 22
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1849
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 1 Thompson 37 (Pennington v. Thomason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennington v. Thomason, 1 Thompson 37, 1 Shan. Cas. 22 (Tenn. 1849).

Opinion

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by James Pennington and; wife against the defendants.

[38]*38The declaration alleged in a single count that tbs defendants in tbe night time broke and entered the dwelling house of the plaintiff, the said Mary Pennington, she being then and there possessed thereof in the absence of her husband, took and removed certain beds, destroyed said dwelling house, and wounded the said defendant, Mary Pennington. The defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action, and the Court below sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for the defendants ; whereupon the plaintiffs appealed.

The Court held that in this case there were two causes of action, injury to the property and injury to the person of the wife. Upon the first the husband should have brought suit alone; upon the second he should have joined with the wife. These two causes of- action cannot be joined in the same proceeding.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Ellis County State Bank v. Keever
888 S.W.2d 790 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Border Apparel-East, Inc. v. Guadian
868 S.W.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
People v. Brown
117 Misc. 2d 587 (New York County Courts, 1983)
Thompson v. Engelking
537 P.2d 635 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1975)
State v. Lansman
60 N.W.2d 815 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1953)
Bartman v. Commissioner
10 T.C. 1073 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
Telonis v. Staley
144 P.2d 513 (Utah Supreme Court, 1943)
Metro Plan, Inc. v. Kotcher-Turner, Inc.
296 N.W. 304 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1941)
Dietz v. Hughes
47 P.2d 417 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1935)
Adams Express Co. v. White
104 A. 110 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1918)
Birkman v. Fahrenthold
114 S.W. 428 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1908)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co.
85 P. 408 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Estate of Fitzgerald v. Union Savings Bank
90 N.W. 994 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1902)
Mauck v. Brown
81 N.W. 313 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1899)
Morgan
1 Rep. Cont. Elect. Case. 87 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Newcomb v. Royce
60 N.W. 552 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1894)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Vandevort
69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 612 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Swift v. . Pacific Mail Steamship Co.
12 N.E. 583 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)
Ware v. Simmons
55 Ga. 94 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1875)
Southern Express Co. v. Craft
49 Miss. 480 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Thompson 37, 1 Shan. Cas. 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennington-v-thomason-tenn-1849.