Hurlburt v. Schulenburg
Can I rely on this case?
Yes — no negative treatment found
Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.
Hurlburt v. Schulenburg
Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The complaint, after averring the partnership of the defendants, alleges that during all the time mentioned in the complaint the plaintiff was, and now is, the owner of certain real estate therein described; “that during the winter of 1868-9, without the consent of the plaintiff or of any person authorized to give such consent, Joseph Mitchell and Charles Mitchell, partners as Mitchell Brothers, unlawfully and wrongfully entered upon said lands, and cut therefrom certain pine trees, then and there standing, growing and being
The defendants demurred upon two grounds:
“ First — It appears from said complaint that there is a defect of parties defendants, Joseph Mitchell and Charles Mitchell being necessary parties to the full determination of said cause of action.
“Second — Said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these defendants.”
The plaintiff moved to strike out the demurrer as frivolous, which motion the court granted, whereupon the defendants appealed from the order striking out the demurrer. The frivolousness of a demurrer must be determined upon the demurrer and the pleading to which it is interposed; if, from mere inspection of these, it can be determined that the pleading demurred to is good, the demurrer will be regarded as frivolous and be stricken out for that reason.
The cause of action alleged is in tort, and the trespassers are liable severally or jointly; all or any number of them may be joined in an action: the Mitchells were not, therefore, necessary parties to the action.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- David W. Hurlburt v. Frederick Schulenburg
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published