Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Minn. 176

Berg v. Stanhope

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 24, 1890

Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1890-04-24

Appeal by defendant Isaac Patterson from an order of the district court for Isanti county, Hicks, J., presiding,, overruling his separate demurrer to the complaint.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1910

2 state decisions

Relies on Ayer v. Stewart

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gilfillan, C. J.1

¶1Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. One ground of demurrer was that several causes of *177action are improperly united. The complaint contains three counts, all alike so far as obnoxious to the above ground of demurrer. Each alleges a request by defendant Stanhope to do certain work, and a promise by him to pay for it, and a separate promise by defendant Patterson to pay for the same work. No joint employment or promise is alleged. In other words, a separate cause of action against each defendant, but no joint cause of action against both, is alleged-

¶2The case comes within the decision in Trowbridge v. Forepaugh, 14 Minn. 100, (133,) in which it was held that the statute forbids thejoinder of causes of action which do not affect all the parties. The-liability of each defendant depends on the contract or promise of himself, to which the other was not a party, and by which he was notf affected.

¶3Order reversed.

¶4 Mitchell, J., was absent, and took no part in this decision.

/43/minn/176 · .json · Public domain