Tuppela v. Mathison

(after stating the facts as above).

It is contended that it was error to deny the defendants’ motion for an instructed verdict in their favor for the reason that the defendant Cobb was not a proper party defendant, and judgment could not properly be entered against him upon the cause of action. We are not convinced that Cobb was not a proper party defendant. The instrument under which Tuppela’s property was transferred to him in trust contained the provision that the trus*182tee was to pay out of the property transferred all debts due and owing or to become due and owing by Tuppela. But if indeed…