Bergmann v. Roll
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, J.
The contention that there is a misjoinder of causes of action is based upon the proposition that the makers, the indorser of a promissory note, and guarantor of a mortgage securing the note, cannot be joined in one action. Cottrell v. New London F. Co. 94 Wis. 176, 68 N. W. 874; Midland T. C. Co. v. Illinois S. Co. 163 Wis. 190, 157 N. W. 785. See, also, Schultz v. Wise, 93 Neb. 718, 141 N. W. 813; Wolf v. Eppenstein, 71 Oreg. 1, 140 Pac. 751; Bowen v. Clark, 25 Oreg. 592, 37 Pac. 74; Graham v. Ringo, 67 Mo. 324. This contention is met by the plaintiff with the proposition that Richard Roll,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hinshaw v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1897
- Graham v. RingoSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Crosby v. RoubWisconsin Supreme Court · 1863
- Midland Terra Cotta Co. v. Illinois-Surety Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1916
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Bishop v. GenzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
- Pribus v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- United States v. KrochmalDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1970
- Zuehlke v. EngelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1938
- Bailey v. MillsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.