Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Allegiance to And The Manner Of >> At Law_P1

At Law

action, joint, wife, joined, join, cro and contract

Page: 1 2 3

AT LAW. In.actions ex contractu. All who have a joint legal interest or are jointly entitled must join in an action on a con tract, even though it be in terms several, or be entered into by one in behalf of all; 1 Saund. 153 ; Archb. Civ. Pl. 58; Sweigart v. Berk, 8 S. & R. (Pa.) 308; Allen v. Dunn, 15 Me. 295, 33 Am. Dec. 614 ; Loomis v. Brown, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 325; as, where the consideration moves from several jointly; 2 Wins. Saund. 116 •a; 4 M. & W. 295 ; or was taken from a joint fund ; Ludlow v. Hurd, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 218.

Some contracts may be considered as ei ther joint or several, and in such case all may join, or each may sue separately ; but part cannot join leaving the others to sue separately.

In an action for a breach of a joint con tract made by several, all the contracting parties should be made defendants ; 1 Saund. 158, n.; even though one or more be bank rupt or inAblvefit ; 2 Maule & S. 33; but see 1 Wils. 89; or an infant ; but not if the con tract be utterly void as to him; 3 Taunt. 307; Hartness v. Thompson, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 160, Jackson v. Woods, id. 280; Wood ward v. Newhall, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 500.

On a joint and several contract, each may be sued separately, or all together ; Minor v. Bank, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 73, 7 L. Ed. 47; Van Tine v. Crane, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 524.

A corporation is a necessary party to a suit brought by its stockholders to enforce its rights ; Porter v. Sabin, 149 U. S. 473; 13 Sup. Ct. 1008, 37 L. Ed. 815.

Executors and administrators must bring their actions in the joint names of all; Crosw. Ex. & Adm. § 636; 5 Scott, N. R. 728; 1 Saund. 291 g; Cole v. Smalley, 25 N. J. L. 374 ; even though some are infants ; Broomy Part. 104.

All the executors who have proved the will are to be joined as defendants in an action on the testator's contract; 1 Cr. M.

& R. 74. But an executor de son tort is not to be joined with the rightful executor. And the executors are not to be joined with other persons who were joint contractors with the deceased; Colson v. Thompson, 2 Wheat. (U. S.) 344, 4 L. Ed. 253 ; Hench v. Metzer, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 272; Humphreys v. Crane, 5 Cal. 173.

Administrators are to be joined, like ex ecutors; Com. Dig. Administrators (B 12). Foreign executors and administrators are not recognized as such, in general; Brook shire v. Dubose, 55 N. C. 276; Kirkpatrick

v. Taylor, 10 Rich. (S. C.) 393; Slauter v. ,Chenowith, 7 Ind. 211.

Husband and wife must join to recover rent due the wife before coverture on her lease while sole ; Co. Litt. 55 b; Cro. Eliz. 700; on the lease by both of lands in which she has a life estate, where the covenant runs to both ; Jacques v. Short, 20 Barb. (N. Y.) 269; but on a covenant generally to both, the husband may sue alone ; 1 B. & C. 443; in all actions in implied promises to the wife acting in autre droit; Com. Dig. Baron & F. (V) ; 9 M. & W. 694 ; Mitchell v. Wright, 4 Tex. 283 ; as to suit on a bond to both, see Steward v. Chance, 3 N. J. L. 827; on a contract running with land of which they are joint assignees ; Cro. Car. 503; in general, to recover any of the wife's choses in action where the cause of action would survive to her ; 1 Chitty, Pl. 17; 1 M.

& S. 180; Morse v. Earl, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 271; Newell v. Newton, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 270; Fuller v. R. Co., 21 Conn. 557 ; Bodgett v. Ebbing, 24 Miss. 245.

They may join at the husband's election in suit on a covenant to repair, when they become joint grantees of a reversion; Cro. Jac. 399 ; to recover the value of the wife's choses in action ; Edwards v. Sheridan, 24 Conn. 165; 2 M. & S. 396, n.; in case of joinder the action survives to her ; 6 M. & W. 426; in case of an express promise to the wife, or to both where she is the meritorious cause of action; Cro. Jac. 77, 205 ; Smith v. Johnson, 5 Harring. (Del.) 57; Milton v. Haden, 32 Ala. 30, 70 Am. Dec. 523.

They must, in general, be joined in actions on contracts entered into by the wife dum seta; 2 Term. 480; Angel v. Felton, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 149 ; Williams v. Coward, 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 21; Smith v. • Johnson, 5 Harring. (Del.) 57 ; where the cause of action accrues against the wife in autre droit; Cro. Car. 518. They may be joined when the hus band promises anew to pay the debt of the wife contracted dum sola; 7 Term 349 ; for rent or breaches of covenant on a joint lease to both for the wife's benefit; Broom, Part. 178. In an action on a contract against a husband and wife, a contract signed by the husband alone is insufficient to support a judgment against the wife; Murdock v. Was son, 158 Pa. 295, 27 Atl. 944.

Page: 1 2 3