Wiesner v. Young
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant, Julius F. Young, from an order of the District Court of Steele county, Buchham, J., made September 19, 1891, The plaintiffs, Barbara Wiesner and her husband, John M. Wies-ner, commenced this action in the Municipal Court of the City of Owatonna against defendant to recover $28,-which the wife paid him for a gold watch.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant, Julius F. Young, from an order of the District Court of Steele county, Buchham, J., made September 19, 1891, The plaintiffs, Barbara Wiesner and her husband, John M. Wies-ner, commenced this action in the Municipal Court of the City of Owatonna against defendant to recover $28,-which the wife paid him for a gold watch. She bargained for it in July, but did not pay for it or take it away until December, 1890. After getting it she thought she discovered it was not the watch she bargained for, but a cheaper one; and on January 9, 1891, she returned it and demanded her money.…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
The contention of defendant is that there could be no recovery in this action, because the husband was joined as plaintiff with the wife, while the cause of action was in the wife alone. The case of Colvill v. Langdon, 22 Minn. 565, is decisive of the question adversely to the defendant. Unquestionably the theory and spirit of the Code is to apply to all actions alike the equity, as distinguished from the old common-law, rule as to a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The equity rule was that, in case of an improper or unnecessary union of coplaintiffs, the suit did not necessarily fail as to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Grace v. MichaudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Colvill v. LangdonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schoening v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
- Headley v. City of NorthfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Paulsrud v. TylerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964