Wilkson v. Blackwell
Supreme Court of Missouri
The appellant submiis, 1st. That Spellman is not interested in the subject of this suit, nor could the plaintiff have any decree against him — therefore it was not necessary to make him a party. — 2nd Maddox ch. 184, he is not a party to the interest involved, and therefore need not be a party to the suit. — 1 John: ch. R. 349; 3 Péere Wms. 311, note J. 2. The bill repeats the contract and states the consideration and mode of payment in different ways, but does not state…
Read the full summary
The appellant submiis, 1st. That Spellman is not interested in the subject of this suit, nor could the plaintiff have any decree against him — therefore it was not necessary to make him a party. — 2nd Maddox ch. 184, he is not a party to the interest involved, and therefore need not be a party to the suit. — 1 John: ch. R. 349; 3 Péere Wms. 311, note J. 2. The bill repeats the contract and states the consideration and mode of payment in different ways, but does not state more than one cause of action. The bill does not blend two demands, but states a single demand and relies on several facts.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court delivered by
McGirk. Judge.
Wilkson brought a bill in chancery against Blackwell, for a specific performance of an agreement, in regard to a pieee of land. The bill states first, one contract in a particular manner, wherein it charges that the land was paid for in money, then it charges the land was paid for in hogs. The bill charges that Blackwell by collusion with a third person, by a fraudulent judgment got posses*431sion of the land, and does not make the third person a party. The defendant Blackwell, demurred to the bill, because the same is multifarious, and because the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915