Wetmore's Admr. v. Karrick
Supreme Court of Vermont
''Assumpsit. Heard in' vacation after'March Term, 1913, Chittenden.-County, by Waterman, J.', on demurrer to each of the three counts of the 'declaration for insufficiency, and to the whole declaration for misjoinder of counts. Demurrers to the first and second counts sustained, and those counts adjudged insufficient; demurrer to the third count overruled, and that count adjudged sufficient; demurrer for misjoinder overruled.- The defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
''Assumpsit. Heard in' vacation after'March Term, 1913, Chittenden.-County, by Waterman, J.', on demurrer to each of the three counts of the 'declaration for insufficiency, and to the whole declaration for misjoinder of counts. Demurrers to the first and second counts sustained, and those counts adjudged insufficient; demurrer to the third count overruled, and that count adjudged sufficient; demurrer for misjoinder overruled.- The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case. ' ■
1Opinion of the CourtPowers, C. J.
This declaration contains three counts. Two are on sealed instruments; one is on a promissory note. The declaration is demurred to for misjoinder and each count is demurred to for insufficiency. The court below sustained the demurrers to the first and second counts, but overruled the demurrer for misjoinder, and adjudged the third count sufficient. The defendant excepted. The questions raised as to the sufficiency of the third count are like those disposed of in Trask, Admr. v. Karrick, 87 Vt. 451, 80 Atl. 472, and need not here be discussed. The question of misjoinder is for consideration.
It…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Boyd v. Mutual Fire Ass'nWisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Penter v. Staight & BeaversWashington Supreme Court · 1890
- Witherbee v. . BowlesNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Trask v. KarrickSupreme Court of Vermont · 1914
- Peninsular Stove Co. v. EllisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.