Imágenes de páginas

trespassers settled on different parts of the same tract of land, and in such a case it is a matter of discretion to allow a severance and separate trial as to each defendant.) Ohio.-Hills v. Ludwig, 46 Ohio St., 373; s. c. 24 N. E. Rep., 596. (Where omitted land is brought in by amendment of complaint, the amendment does not relate back to the time of bringing the action so as to authorize a recovery of such land, if its recovery was barred by the statute of limitations when the amendment was allowed.) Wisconsin. Methodist Epis. Church v. Northern R. R. Co., 78 Wis., 131; s. c. 48 N. W. Rep., 190. (A complaint which insufficiently states a cause of action in ejectment in failing to allege that plaintiff was entitled to possession at the commencement of the action cannot be sustained as setting forth a cause of action in trespass for mesne profits; since the recovery of mesne profits is merely incidental to the recovery in ejectment.)


[Principal Case, p. 287, this Vol.]

Alabama.—Beggs v. Edison Electric Light, etc., Co., 96 Ala., 295; s. c. 11 So. Rep., 381. (Demurrer should be sustained, where it is merely alleged that there is a complication in the accounts, without averring in what respect.) Attalla, etc., Manuf. Co. v. Winchester, Ala., 1894, 14 So. Rep., 565. (Bill cannot be maintained, where the accounts are neither mutual or complicated.) Illinois.—Angelo v. Angelo, 146 Ill., 629; s. c. 35 N. E. Rep., 229. (Demurrer should have been sustained to a bill against a co-tenant in common, which did not show that he received any rents, nor the value of the land, but merely showed defendant's occupancy of the premises, and plaintiff's forbearance to occupy them.) Cook County v. Davis, 143 Ill., 151; s. c. 32 N. E. Rep., 176. (A bill upon a purely legal demand, not filed in aid of an action at law, and seeking only the discovery of witnesses' names, shows no ground of equitable jurisdiction.) Maine.-Hager v. Whitmore, 82 Me., 248; s. c. 19 Atl. Rep., 444. (A bill may be retained against a trustee in order to effectuate an accounting and adjustment between the parties, including matters subsequent to the filing of the bill, although plaintiff fails to establish the allegations of the bill.) Massachusetts.-Tateum v. Ross, 150 Mass., 440; s. c. 23 N. E. Rep., 230. (A bill will lie for the recovery of the proceeds of insurance, less the amount of the debt, death assessments and expenses, from a creditor, who held the policy as a collateral; as he stands in a trust relation, and an accounting is necessary.) Michigan.-Nash v. Buchard, 87 Mich., 85; s.. c. 49 N. W. Rep., 492. (A financial agent cannot maintain an action for an accounting, on the ground that he paid certain debts and became an indorsor for his principal; as he is presumed to know the amounts which he has received and paid out.) Warren v. Holbrook, 95 Mich., 185; s. c. 54 N. W. Rep., 712. (A bar-keeper required to keep an account of money received, and to pay it over to his employer, occupies a fiduciary relation, and can be compelled to account in a court of equity.) Holmes v. Mal

colm McDonald Lumber Co., 95 Mich., 606; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep., 450. (The action will lie, where several parties are interested in a fund held by a trustee, where the facts are complicated, and fraud is alleged.) New York.-Schnaier v. Schmidt, 13 N. Y. Supp., 725; s. c. 37 State Rep., 638. (Where the cause of action set forth involves only an obligation for the payment of a specific sum of money by one firm to another, the circumstance that one of the defendants was a member of each firm does not present a case for an accounting.) Abbey v. Wheeler, 32 N. Y. Supp., 1069. (A Court of Equity will not assume jurisdiction of an action brought solely for an accounting, where that is the incidental and not the prime relief sought.) Oregon.-Hoyt v. Clarkson, 23 Ore., 51; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep., 198. (Where the court finds there was a settlement, but allows it to be opened for the purpose of showing errors and mistakes, plaintiff should, before being allowed to introduce evidence, be compelled to amend his complaint so as to specify the errors and mistakes relied on.) Rhode Island.—McCulla v. Beadleston, 17 R. I., 20 ; s. c. 20 Atl. Rep., 11. (An accounting for over payments in the purchase of goods cannot be maintained by reason of a trust relation, although it is alleged that plaintiff was agent to sell the goods for defendant, it appearing that the goods were to be plaintiff's.) United States.-Babbott v. Tewksbury, 46 Fed. Rep., 86. (A suit will not lie upon a contract to pay complainant commissions on certain sales, the amounts of which are unknown to the complainant; since he has an adequate remedy at law.) Virginia.—Goddin v. Bland, Va., 1891, 13 S. E. Rep., 145. (A mere dispute between an employer and employee as to the quantity of wood delivered, which was to be paid for by the cord, presents no ground for equity jurisdiction, though the account is a long one.)


[Principal Case, p. 294, this Vol.]

Alabama.-Haynes v. Short, 88 Ala., 562; s. c. 7 So. Rep., 157. (On motion to dismiss for want of equity, a bill praying an account be taken "to determine the amount put in a firm by orator's intestate, and how much thereof is due his estate; and a decree against the surviving partner for the amount found due,-will be deemed to be already amended, so as to contain the necessary allegations, as to the approximate amount of the partnership's debts, the amount of profits and expenses, and the amount received by each partner, and to contain a prayer for the settlement of the whole partnership.) New York.-Ketchum v. Lewis, 46 State Rep., 843; s. c. 19 N. Y. Supp., 452. (Complaint setting forth several transactions between plaintiff and defendant as co-partners, held to state but one cause of action.) Teschemacher v. Lenz, 31 N. Y. Supp., 543; s. c. 82 Hun, 594. (In an action for the dissolution of partnership and for an accounting, the particular transaction as to which the accounting will be required need not be specified in the complaint.) Rhode Island.—

Congdon v. Aylsworth, 19 R. I., 28; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep., 247. (Though the right of discovery is waived, a bill is sufficient to sustain an accounting, which alleges, a partnership between complainant and defendant, which has been dissolved, but whose accounts have never been settled; that the books and papers thereof are in defendant's possession, and his refusal to allow their inspection by complainant.) United States.-Rosenstein v. Burns, 41 Fed. Rep., 841. (Bill alleging that the defendant partner willfully neglected to comply with the partnership agreement, that the business was being conducted at a loss, and that complainants were induced to enter into the agreement through defendant's misrepresentations,—is not multifarious.) Vermont.-Park v. McGowan, 64 Vt., 173; s. c. 23 Atl. Rep., 855. (In an action against the administrator of a deceased partner for what he might have received above his share, it is not essential to allege that the administrator received the property belonging to the deceased, or to the partnership.)


[Principal Case, p. 301, this Vol.]

Alabama.-Christian v. American, etc., Mortgage Co., 92 Ala., 130; s. c. 9 So. Rep., 219. (Conveyance to mortgagor may be alleged by an averment, that a person named conveyed to him, with or without a statement of the grounds on which such allegation is based.) Bedell v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 91 Ala., 325; s. c. 8 So. Rep., 494. (Where a mortgage contains a power of sale on default, in order to recover attorney's fees in the foreclosure suit, some facts must be alleged to show that that form of foreclosure was necessary.) Mullens v. American, etc., Mortgage Co., 88 Ala., 280; s. c. 7 So. Rep., 201. (It is error to overrule a demurrer to a bill which fails to allege that defendant, a foreign corporation, was authorized to do business in the state, at the time the mortgage was executed and delivered ;) S. P. Farrier v. New England Mortgage Security Co., 88 Ala., 275; s. c. 7 So. Rep., 200. California.— Hewitt v. Dean, 91 Cal., 617; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 753. (Plaintiff need not demand payment, or give notice of his election to regard the whole sum of principal and interest due, before foreclosing because of a default in the payment of interest.) Whitby v. Rowell, 82 Cal., 635; s. c. 23 Pac. Rep., 40. (Demurrer overruled, where the land was not described in the body of the complaint, but a full description thereof was contained in a copy of the mortgage annexed to the complaint.) S. P. Scott v. Sells, 88 Cal. 599; s. c. 26 Pac. Rep., 350. San Francisco Breweries v. Schurtz, 104 Cal., 420; s. c. 38 Pac. Rep., 92. (Held, that a defendant's interest was sufficiently alleged by an averment that defendant "had or claimed to have some interest" in the mortgaged property, which was subsequent and subject to the mortgage.) As to the allegations necessary to recover reasonable attorney's fees, stipulated to be paid by the mortgage, see First National Bank v. Holt, 87 Cal., 158; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 272; Lee v. McCarthy, Cal., 1894, 35 Pac. Rep., 1034; Hewett v.

Dean, 91 Cal., 5, 617; s. c. 25 Pac. Rep., 753. Florida.-Long v. Herrick, 26 Fla., 356; s. c. 8 So. Rep., 50. (The formal prayer for such other and further relief as equity may require does not authorize a personal judgment against mortgagor's wife, who joined in the mortgage for the purpose of relinquishing her right of dower.) Indiana.-Brunson v. Henry, Ind., 1894, 39 N. E. Rep., 256. (In an action by the heirs of a deceased mortgagee, complaint is bad, if it fails to allege that there were no debts against decedent's estate, and that no letters of administration have been granted.) Kentucky.-Bailey v. Fanning Orphan School, Ky., 1890, 14 S. W. Rep., 908. (Where it was alleged that the mortgage was recorded in the county where the land was situated, it was held immaterial that neither the petition or the mortgage showed in what county the land was located.) Missouri.—Knox v. Brown, 103 Mo., 223; s. c. 15 S. W. Rep., 382. (After a verdict it is too late to object that the petition does not allege that a purchaser's vendor, as well as the purchaser, had notice of the mortgage.) Nebraska.-Dimick v. Grand Island Banking Co., 37 Neb., 394; s.c. 55 N. W. Rep., 1066. (The provision of the Code, that the petition shall state whether any proceedings have, been had at law for the recovery of the debt, or any part thereof, applies only to formal mortgages, and not to equitable mortgages, and liens.) New Jersey.— Wheeler & Wilson Manuf. Co. v. Filer, N. J. Ch., 1893, 28 Atl. Rep., 13. (The fact that the bill alleges nothing in terms against a defendant against whom it prays process is not a ground for demurrer if he is informed by the notice annexed to his subpoena that he is made a party because he holds a mortgage on the premises.) New York.—Preston v. Loughran, 58 Hun, 210; s. c. 12 N. Y. Supp., 313; 34 State Rep., 391. (A judgment of foreclosure is not invalidated because the complaint does not allege that the assignment of the bond to the plaintiff as well as the mortgage, where the assignment of both bond and mortgage was proved at the trial.) Albany City National Bank v. Hudson River Brick Co., 29 N. Y. Supp., 793. (Demurrer of one of the defendants properly overruled, where complaint alleged that he had, or claimed, some interest in the mortgaged property.) North Dakota.-Fisher v. Bouisson, 3 N. Da., 493; s. c. 57 N. W. Rep., 505. (Demurrer sustained to a complaint, on the ground that it did not show whether or not any proceedings had been had at law for the recovery of the mortgage debt, though it alleged that no other foreclosure proceedings had been instituted, except an unsuccesful effort to foreclose by advertisement.) Ohio.-Winemiller v. Laughlin, Ohio, 1894, 38 N. E. Rep., 111. (In order to bar another lien holder, it is sufficient if the petition allege that such defendant claims some interest in the mortgaged premises, and advises him that his claim or lien will be barred, if he fails to appear and disclose it.) Tennessee.-Clark v. Jones, 93 Tenn., 639; s. c. 27 S. W. Rep., 1009. (A bill by the transferee of a note secured by a trust deed to foreclose the lien need not allege that the trustee refused to execute the trust, or that his execution thereof was impeded by the maker of the note.) Washington.-Dexter v. Long, 2 Wash., 433; s. c. 27 Pac. Rep., 271. (Held, that it was sufficient to allege that a defendant had, or claimed, some interest in, or lien upon, the mortgaged property; but that the same, whatever it might be

was subject to plaintiff's mortgage.) Richmond v. Voorhees, Wash., 1894, 38 Pac. Rep., 1014. (A complaint alleging that the mortgage was executed by a named person as attorney in fact for defendant, but not alleging that such person had been constituted defendant's attorney in fact,-held to be sufficient, where it was also generally alleged that the mortgage was executed by defendant.)


[Principal Case, p. 311, this Vol.]


Alabama.-Wolffe v. Loeb, 98 Ala., 426; s. c. 13 So. Rep., 744. (A sale of real estate for distribution under a petition to the probate court is void, where the petition fails to set forth the interest in the property of each co-owner as required in a petition for partition by Civ. Code, § 3239.) McEvoy v. Leonard, 89 Ala., 455; s. c. 8 So. Rep., 40. (Demurrer properly sustained to a bill praying that the land be sold for distribution, which did not allege that the property could not be equitably divided without sale.) Id. (Demurrer also sustained, on the ground that the bill showed an adverse holding on disputed facts. The title must be determined before the land can be sold for distribution.) Indiana.-Brown v. Brown, 133 Ind., 476; s. c. 32 N. E. Rep., 1128; Id., 33 N. E. Rep., 615. (Demurrer properly sustained, where complaint merely alleged that plaintiffs were children of a deceased grantee, without alleging that such grantee died seised, or that plaintiffs had an interest in the land, when the action was commenced.) Prather v. Prather, Ind., 1894, 39 N. E. Rep., 310. (An allegation that plaintiff made improvements on the land, an itemized statement of which is as follows," stating in detail their extent and value,-held to sufficiently allege that plaintiff paid for such improvements.) Louisiana.—Fix v. Koepke, 44 La. Ann., 745; s. c. 11 So. Rep., 39. (The absence of an averment of the value of the property, and where located, can be cured by amendment.) Missouri.-Thompson v. Holden, 117 Mo., 118; s. c. 22 S. W. Rep., 905. (It is sufficient, if the petition allege that a party claims some interest, the value of which is to the plaintiff unknown, and which is left to the party himself to specially assert.) Waddell v. Waddell, 99 Mo., 338; s. c. 12 S. W. Rep., 349. (Where the general right to the whole land is being litigated, the fact that parties to the suit rely upon distinct and independent rights does not make the petition multifarious.) Lilly v. Menke, Mo., 1894, 28 S. W. Rep., 643. (An allegation that defendant has been in possession of the property, and has received the rents and profits thereof, is not sufficient to support a claim for rents, in absence of an allegation that plaintiff was denied a joint occupancy of the premises.) Beck v. Kallmeyer, 42 Mo. App., 563. (An accounting for rents may be allowed in a proceeding in equity to partition land, but not in a statutory proceeding.) New York.—Townsend v. Bogert, 126 N. Y., 370; s. c. 27 N. E. Rep., 555. (Where complaint alleged that the land could not be divided, and stated a good cause of action against a co-tenant, and alleged that another defendant claimed

« AnteriorContinuar »