Grimshaw v. Woolfall
New York Court of Common Pleas
Action by Robert Grimshaw against Frederick Hartley Woolfall and others. Defendants demurred to the complaint on the grounds (1) that there was a misjoinder of causes of action; and (2) that the complaint aid not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
There must be judgment upon the demurrer for the plaintiff, with costs, with leave to defendants to answer within 20 days, upon the payment of costs. Assuming that tile complaint sets out two valid causes of action, it is not a misjoinder of actions because one is ex contractu and the other ex delicto, provided both arise out of the same transaction, or transactions with the same subject of action. Code Civil Proc. § 484, subd. 9;1 Robinson v. Flint, 16 How. Pr. 240; Badger v. Benedict, 4 Abb. Pr. 176, affirmed 1 Hilt. 419; Rothchild v. Railroad Co., (Sup.) 10 N. Y. Supp. 36; Bliss, Code Pl.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Wheeler v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Hale v. . Omaha National BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Rothchild v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of CanadaNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Robinson v. FlintNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Badger v. BenedictNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1857
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mackenzie v. HattonNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893