Trowbrigde v. Forepaugh
Supreme Court of Minnesota
, This action was commenced in • the Court of Common Pleas, Ramsey County, against Joseph L. Eorepaugh, and Charles Leonard, Monroe Shiere and Komaine Shiere, partners as Leonard & Sheire, and the City of St. Paul.
Read the full summary
, This action was commenced in • the Court of Common Pleas, Ramsey County, against Joseph L. Eorepaugh, and Charles Leonard, Monroe Shiere and Komaine Shiere, partners as Leonard & Sheire, and the City of St. Paul. The allegations of the complaint are substantially: that it is the duty of the Oity, under its charter, to keep streets and sidewalks in repair, and free from obstructions, and in suitable condition for use and travel; that Third street, in said City, was opened in 1855, and has been used and traveled prior to, and since said year; that defendant Forepaugh owns lot 9, on said…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gourt
"WilsoN, Ch. J.
The liability of the city depends on a state of facts not affecting its co-defendants ; and the converse. Neither is in fact nor in law chargeable with, or liable on account of the matter set up as a cause of action against the other. They did not- jointly conduce to the injury by any acts either of omission or commission.
Under such circumstances we find no case holding that a joint action is maintainable; and' we are of the opinion that it is unauthorized by any statute or legal principle. Our statute, which is merely declaratory of the common law, forbids the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Helms v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota · 1903
- Kelly v. Chicago & A. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1903
- Carmichael v. City of TexarkanaU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1899
- Hayden v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1898
- MacDonald v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.