Minnesota Supreme Court, 1890

Berg v. Stanhope

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 24, 1890 · Gilfillan

43 Minn. 176; 45 N.W. 15; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 144 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

J. A. Ross and J. L. Dobbin, for appellant., H. F. Barker, for respondents.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1904, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Jones v. Balsley (Okla. 1910)
Hanna v. Duxbury (Minn. 1904)
Spencer v. Candelaria Waterworks & Milling Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada 1902)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gilfillan, C. J.1

Appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. One ground of demurrer was that several causes of *177action are improperly united. The complaint contains three counts, all alike so far as obnoxious to the above ground of demurrer. Each alleges a request by defendant Stanhope to do certain work, and a promise by him to pay for it, and a separate promise by defendant Patterson to pay for the same work. No joint employment or promise is alleged. In other words, a separate cause of action against each defendant, but no joint cause of action against both, is alleged-

The case comes within the decision in Trowbridge v. Forepaugh, 14 Minn. 100, (133,) in which it was held that the statute forbids thejoinder of causes of action which do not affect all the parties. The-liability of each defendant depends on the contract or promise of himself, to which the other was not a party, and by which he was notf affected.

Order reversed.

Mitchell, J., was absent, and took no part in this decision.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.