Mix v. Hotchkiss
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was a bill for foreclosure, brought by Henry Hotchkiss and Lucius Hotchkiss against Isaac Mix, Thomas Mix, George C. Mix, William Mix, Silas Mix, Jesse Peck and Elizur Hubbell.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was a bill for foreclosure, brought by Henry Hotchkiss and Lucius Hotchkiss against Isaac Mix, Thomas Mix, George C. Mix, William Mix, Silas Mix, Jesse Peck and Elizur Hubbell. On the 28th of February, 1837, Isaac Mix, Thomas Mix, and Isaac Mix, jr., copartners under the firm of Isaac Mix fy Sons, made and delivered their promissory note to the plaintiffs, promising to pay them, on demand, the sum of 20,000 dollars ; to which note the following condition was annexed : “The condition of the above note is such that whereas we have this day executed a promissory note, of even date…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.
The plaintiffs in error complain of the proceedings of the court below, for several reasons.
1. That the bill should have been adjudged multifarious, upon the demurrer.
An objection to a biffin equity for multifariousness, is well taken, when several plaintiffs, by one bill, demand several matters perfectly distinct and unconnected against one defendant ; or when one plaintiff demands several distinct and unconnected matters against several defendants. But where one general right is claimed by the bill, though the defendants have separate and distinct interests, the bill is not multifarious.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brinkerhoff v. BrownNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
3Cited by16 opinions
- Middletown Savings Bank v. BacharachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- Concord Union Mut. F. Insurance v. WoodburySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1858
- New Haven Bank N. B. A. v. JacksonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Walker v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
- Skilton v. RobertsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.