Minter v. Gose
Decision Date | 27 December 1904 |
Citation | 78 P. 948,13 Wyo. 178 |
Parties | MINTER v. GOSE ET AL |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
ERROR to the District Court, Weston County, HON. JOSEPH L. STOTTS Judge.
This action was brought in the District Court by J. C. Minter against P. S. Gose, R. G. Gose, Thomas Gose, John Berry and A. W. Boyd, to recover damages for a trespass alleged to have been committed by the defendants upon certain lands of plaintiff. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Reversed.
M. B Camplin, for plaintiff in error.
The petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Sections 3533, 3480, 3481 and 3456 are fully complied with. This being an action for trespass on land, the land should be described and ownership or possession in the plaintiff averred. The petition contains these requisites in paragraph one. The second paragraph sets forth the special value of the property destroyed and the value of its use to the plaintiff, and the special character of the injury is stated in the fourth paragraph, and the amount of damages suffered is alleged in the fifth paragraph, which is followed by the prayer for judgment. The third paragraph charges the trespass and the wrongful acts of the defendants, stating the time, and the property upon which, the trespass was committed, the means whereby the injury was effected, and alleges that the defendants, with sheep owned and controlled by them, entered upon the lands wrongfully and unlawfully feeding and grazing the sheep thereon until they were wholly depastured, and the grasses and herbage thereon wholly trod down, destroyed and consumed. The allegations were sufficient. The petition need only state such facts as uncontradicted would warrant a judgment. It is no longer necessary to observe the old terms used in the action of trespass; the words "wrongfully and unlawfully" having superseded the words formerly used, "with force and arms." The fundamental requirement of the code that the cause of action be stated in plain and precise language need only be observed. In trespass, the complaint need not allege that the damage is due and unpaid. (Atkinson v. Mott, 102 Ind. 431.)
Separate causes of action against several defendants are not improperly joined in the petition, but one cause of action is stated against the defendants as joint tort-feasors. There is no improper joinder of separate causes of action. The defendants are shown by the allegations of the petition to be united in interest and they are rightfully joined as defendants. (R. S. 1899, Secs. 3480, 3481; Chadwick v. Hopkins, 4 Wyo. 379; 7 Lawson's Rights, Rem. & Pr., Sec. 3456, and cases cited.) In actions ex delicto the liability of tort-feasors being joint and several, the action might be against all or any of them. (Russell v. Tomilson, 2 Conn., 206; Van S. v. Tobias, 17 Wend., 562; Adams v. Hall, 2 Vt. 9.) No separate causes of action are stated in the petition. (Rasso v. Varni (Cal.), 21 P. 762; Gilbert v. Pritchard, 41 Hun, 46; Whatling v. Nash, id., 579; R. S. 1899, Sec. 3493; Kearney Stone Works v. MacPherson, 5 Wyo. 178; Maxwell's Pldg., 118-9; Addison on Torts, Sec. 423; 38 N.Y. 21.) A joint demurrer will be overruled if the petition states a cause of action against any of those joining in the demurrer. (Dunn v. Gibson, 9 Neb., 513; 11 id., 192; Asseveda v. Orr (Cal.), 34 P. 777; 100 Cal. 293; 111 id., 281; Lausman v. Drahoe, 10 Neb. 173; 35 Am. R., 468; 43 P. 899.) The demurrer is meaningless as to the second objection, since it fails to point out or specify wherein separate causes of action against several defendants are improperly joined. (Owen v. Oviatt, 4 Utah 95; 51 Cal. 431; 91 Ind. 182; 101 Cal. 585.)
In this case the defendants demurred to the petition on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that separate causes of action against several defendants are improperly joined. The demurrer was sustained, and the ruling excepted to. Thereupon, the plaintiff declined to plead further and stood on his petition, and judgment was entered in favor of defendants, dismissing the petition, and awarding defendants their costs. The plaintiff prosecutes error.
The action is one for damages for trespass on realty. The petition, after stating the venue and title of the case, is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce, 1937
...does allege a joint tort. Mau v. Stoner, 15 Wyo. 109. The question could not be raised by demurrer. Sec. 89-1008, R. S. 1931; Minter v. Gose, 13 Wyo. 178, 78 P. 948; Stone Works v. McPherson, 5 Wyo. 178. The does not show on its face that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.......
-
Garber v. Spray
... ... (Cosgriff Bros. v. Miller, 10 Wyo. 190; Martin ... v. Platte Valley Sheep Co., 12 Wyo. 432; Minter v ... Gose, 13 Wyo. 178; Hardman v. King, 14 Wyo ... 503; Painter v. Stahley Bros., 15 Wyo. 510; Glen ... Jean R. R. Co. v. Kanawha, 47 W.Va ... ...
-
Mau v. Stoner
... ... defendants committed the acts alleged to have caused the ... injury which in effect makes the [15 Wyo. 127] act a joint ... one. ( Minter v. Gose et al., 13 Wyo. 178, 78 P ... 948.) When he rested his case no joint liability had been ... proven and the defendants by their answer had ... ...