Hopson v. Harrell
Mississippi Supreme Court
Hopson v. Harrell, 56 Miss. 202 (Miss. 1878)
Chalmers
Hopson v. Harrell
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The attorney, Applewhite, was improperly made a defendant. No relief of any sort was prayed against him, — not even a discovery. But he does not object, and it is well settled that it is only the defendant who has been improperly joined that can demur for misjoinder. Story’s Eq. Pl., sect. 544; Cherry v. Monro, 2 Barb. Ch. 618; Crane v. Deming, 7 Conn. 387; Butts v. Genung, 5 Paige, 256.
It follows that the demurrer interposed by defendant Har-rel was improperly sustained.
Decree reversed, demurrer overruled, and sixty days given for answers.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mary J. Hopson v. A. J. Harrell
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Pleading. Parties to bill. Attorney. It is improper to make the defendant’s attorney, against whom no relief, and from whom no discovery, is asked, defendant to a hill in chancery. 2. Same. Misjoinder. Who may object. Only the defendant improperly joined can demur for misjoinder.