Dickey v. Willis
| Decision Date | 18 June 1913 |
| Parties | DICKEY v. WILLIS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo. W. Reed, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Herbert L. Barrett and Peabody, Arnold, Batchelder & Luther, all of Boston, for defendants.
This is an action of tort against two defendants. The declaration contains two counts, one setting forth certain acts performed by one defendant, and the other acts performed by the other defendant. But there is no allegation of conspiracy or concert between them. There is nothing which fairly can be construed as an averment of joint actions or conduct which would constitute them joint tort-feasors. The acts alleged to have been performed by each defendant are different and they are not alleged to have been part of a common design. Two persons cannot be joined as defendants in an action of tort unless they directly or indirectly co-operate in the doing of the wrong. The allegations do not bring this case within that class of actions. Feneff v. B & M. R. R., 196 Mass. 575, 580, 82 N.E. 705, and cases cited; Fletcher v. B. & M. R. R., 187 Mass. 463, 73 N.E. 552, 105 Am. St. Rep. 414. There is a misjoinder of defendants. On this ground the demurrer to both counts must be sustained.
It is not necessary to pass on the sufficiency of either count, as if it were against a single defendant, although it may be remarked that there is no averment that the representation contained in the contract between Wilson and McFarlan & Co. was made to the plaintiff or that he relied upon it.
According to the terms of the report the entry must be:
Judgment for the defendants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barber v. Reina Nash Motor Co.
...Nat. Bank of Macon, Ga., 245 U.S. 513, 38 S.Ct. 176, 62 L.Ed. 441 (Ga. law); Mitchell v. Black, 6 Gray 100, 72 Mass. 100; Dickey v. Willis, 215 Mass. 292, 102 N.E. 336; Ellingboe (Ellingbor) v. Brakken, 36 Minn. 156, 30 N.W. 659; Howe v. Cochran, 47 Minn. 403, 50 N.W. 368; Forrester v. Kear......
-
Popkin v. Goldman
...cooperation between them as would warrant a finding of joint liability (see Feneff v. Boston & Maine Railroad, supra, Dickey v. Willis, 215 Mass. 292, 102 N. E. 336; see also Stone v. Dickinson, 5 Allen, 29, 81 Am. Dec. 727), need not be considered now for there has been a verdict for the d......
-
Leahy v. Standard Oil Co. of New York
...v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R., 212 Mass. 102, 107, 108 [98 N. E. 787,40 L. R. A. (N. S) 778];Brown v. Thayer, 212 Mass. 392, 397 ;Dickey v. Willis, 215 Mass. 292, 293 . The plaintiff was entitled to have the issue found in his favor and to hold the defendants, although the accident would not h......
-
Bost v. Metcalfe
...611, 130 S.E. 502. Distinct claims against several defendants cannot be joined. Gilmore v. Christ Hospital, Page 652. Dickey v. Willis, 215 Mass. 292, 102 N.E. 336; Keyes Little York Gold Washing & Water Co., 53 Cal. 724. An action cannot be maintained against two or more defendants for dis......