Powell v. Dayton, Sheridan, & Grand Ronde R. R.
Oregon Supreme Court
Multnomah County. Defendants appeal. To allow these several plaintiffs to join in one suit to set aside the several assignments made by them would be to allow several plaintiffs having several entirely separate and distinct causes of suit to join in one suit,, simply because all the causes of suit were against one defendant. Equity never did permit this. (Story’s Eq.
Read the full summary
Multnomah County. Defendants appeal. To allow these several plaintiffs to join in one suit to set aside the several assignments made by them would be to allow several plaintiffs having several entirely separate and distinct causes of suit to join in one suit,, simply because all the causes of suit were against one defendant. Equity never did permit this. (Story’s Eq. PL, secs. 271, 272, 279; 1 Daniell’s Ch. Pl. & Pr., 4th ed., 344; Yeaton v. Lenox, 7 Pet. 220; Marselis v. Morris Canal' Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 31-39; Jones v. Garcia Del Rio, 12 Eng. Ch. 297; Exeter College v. Rowland, 6 Madd. 66;…
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
The respondents, consisting of some ninety persons, each having a separate claim, commenced a suit in the court below against the appellants, to obtain satisfaction of their claims. The following is the substance of their complaint filed therein:
“ That the Dayton, Sheridan, and Grand Ronde Railroad Company, in the construction of its railroad, incurred separate debts to each of the eighty-nine separate plaintiffs, in an amount to each which is stated, and that being unable to pay these debts, for the purpose of securing their payment it agreed with the Willamette Valley Railroad Company to,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Smith v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
- State v. RichardsonOregon Supreme Court · 1906
- Powell v. D. S. & G. R. R.Oregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Adams v. KennardOregon Supreme Court · 1927
- Wolf v. EppensteinOregon Supreme Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.