Washburne v. Lufkin
Supreme Court of Minnesota
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR lEENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error:, Birst.' — 'It is not necessary that “the full name of ¿he respective parties ” to an action should be set forth in the complaint. It is always enough to give the initials of the Christian names of the parties ; especially is it enough to sue the Defendants by the names by which they have signed the instrument on which the action is brought, as is the. case in this action.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OR lEENNEPIN COUNTY. Points and authorities of Plaintiff in Error:, Birst.' — 'It is not necessary that “the full name of ¿he respective parties ” to an action should be set forth in the complaint. It is always enough to give the initials of the Christian names of the parties ; especially is it enough to sue the Defendants by the names by which they have signed the instrument on which the action is brought, as is the. case in this action. Nor if this were error, would it be ground for demurrer. Vide 1 Chitt. on Pleading, 255; Rev. Stat. M. T. page 337, Chap. 70,…
1Opinion of the Court
AtWaíer, J.
By the Court. Lufkin and "West were sureties on a bond executed by Thomas Chase as principal, condi*470tioned to abide by an award to be made by arbitrators, in regard to certain matters of difference existing between Chase, Kimball and Washburne, (the Plaintiff’ below). The complaint sets forth the instrument of submission, executed by the parties, the bonds, the making of the award, &c., by the arbitrators, and alleges that the said Chase was required by the same to pay the, Plaintiff the sum of $1600. Default was alleged in. payment of the amount, and judgment demanded against the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Muscatine County v. OliverSupreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
- Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003