Hedderly v. Downs
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action against Henry Downs and James Baxter, in the district court for Hennepin county, alleging in his complaint the making of a contract between himself and the defendants, whereby he granted and permitted to the defendants the right to quarry and remove stone from certain premises, and the defendants agreed to pay him for the stone removed at a specified rate, and that there was due him, under the contract, for stone so removed, the sum of…
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action against Henry Downs and James Baxter, in the district court for Hennepin county, alleging in his complaint the making of a contract between himself and the defendants, whereby he granted and permitted to the defendants the right to quarry and remove stone from certain premises, and the defendants agreed to pay him for the stone removed at a specified rate, and that there was due him, under the contract, for stone so removed, the sum of $3,502.35, for which sum judgment was demanded. The answer of defendant James Baxter (being the only answer interposed) denies…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
This action is founded upon a sealed agreement between plaintiff and one E. Hedderly, jointly, as parties of the first part, and defendants, jointly, as parties of the second. Prima facie, then, any action upon it against defendants should be brought by'the Hedderlys jointly, for, the cause of action being joint, the action must be joint also. Dicey on Parties, 11, 104. If anything has occurred to take the case out of this general rule, it should be alleged in the complaint and proved; but no understanding between the Hedderlys prior to the execution of the agreement could have any such…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lesher v. GetmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
- Daby v. . EricssonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Nelson v. RobsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1871
- Coit v. WaplesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1854
- Payson v. EverettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Vickery v. New London Northern RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1914
- Young v. SeverySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Young v. Severy, AssigneeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1897
- Semper v. CoatesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1904
- Krost v. MoyerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.