Tennessee Supreme Court, 1849

Pennington v. Thomason

Tennessee Supreme Court · Decided September 15, 1849 · Green, McKinney, Türley

1 Thompson 37; 1 Shan. Cas. 22

Cases that cite this one

18 later published cases cite this decision.

Morgan (Mass. 1896)
Border Apparel-East, Inc. v. Guadian (Tex. App. 1994)
Mauck v. Brown (Neb. 1899)
Ellis County State Bank v. Keever (Tex. 1994)
People v. Brown (New York County Courts 1983)
Thompson v. Engelking (Idaho 1975)
State v. Lansman (Iowa 1953)
Bartman v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1948)
Telonis v. Staley (Utah 1943)
Metro Plan, Inc. v. Kotcher-Turner, Inc. (Mich. 1941)
Dietz v. Hughes (N.M. 1935)
Adams Express Co. v. White (Md. 1918)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co. (Kan. 1906)
Estate of Fitzgerald v. Union Savings Bank (Neb. 1902)
Newcomb v. Royce (Neb. 1894)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Accounts of Vandevort (New York Supreme Court 1892)
Swift v. . Pacific Mail Steamship Co. (N.Y. 1887)
Ware v. Simmons (Ga. 1875)

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

This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by James Pennington and; wife against the defendants.

*38The declaration alleged in a single count that tbs defendants in tbe night time broke and entered the dwelling house of the plaintiff, the said Mary Pennington, she being then and there possessed thereof in the absence of her husband, took and removed certain beds, destroyed said dwelling house, and wounded the said defendant, Mary Pennington. The defendants demurred on the ground of misjoinder of plaintiffs and causes of action, and the Court below sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for the defendants ; whereupon the plaintiffs appealed.

The Court held that in this case there were two causes of action, injury to the property and injury to the person of the wife. Upon the first the husband should have brought suit alone; upon the second he should have joined with the wife. These two causes of- action cannot be joined in the same proceeding.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.