Pitts v. Crane
Oregon Supreme Court
1Per curiam
— This action is predicated upon the supposition that the contract declared upon is joint, and not several.
The contract is joint or it is several. It cannot be regarded as both joint and several. If it is a joint contract, it was not only proper, but necessary, that both the husband and wife join in the action as plaintiffs. But, if it is several, the plaintiffs cannot sue jointly: 1 Code Pleading and Practice, Sutherland, § 18; 15 Ency. Plead. & Prac. 528; 4 Page on The Law of Contracts (2 ed.), §§ 2078, 2079. The reason for the rule requiring the plaintiffs to join as such in an action upon…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lyon v. BertramSupreme Court of the United States · 1858
- Nickum v. GastonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Sturgis v. BakerOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Durkee v. CarrOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Hall v. LeighSupreme Court of the United States · 1814
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nordling v. JohnstonOregon Supreme Court · 1955
- State of Oregon v. LaneganOregon Supreme Court · 1951
- Fromme v. Lang & Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1929
- Wyoming Wool Marketing Association v. UrrutyWyoming Supreme Court · 1964
- House v. LongSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.