Sanders v. Classon

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McMillan
• Citation: Sanders v. Classon, 13 Minn. 352 (Minn. 1868)
• Decision Date: 01 January 1868
• Parties: E. W. SANDERS and others v. ADELBERT B. CLASSON and others.

Page 352

13 Minn. 352

E. W. SANDERS and others

v. ADELBERT B. CLASSON and others.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court, Goodhue county, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.

The demurrer was upon the grounds that two causes of action were improperly joined, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Phelps & Taber, for appellants.

Seagrave Smith, for respondents.

McMILLAN, J.

The demurrer in this action must be sustained, on the ground that it appears from the face of the complaint that two causes of action are improperly united.

The complaint contains a cause of action against the defendants A. B. & C. L. Classon for the sale and delivery of the goods by the plaintiffs to them, and also a cause of action in favor of the plaintiffs against Michael B. Classon on his promise to A. B. & C. L. Classon to pay their indebtedness for these goods to the plaintiffs.

This view disposes of the case so far as this demurrer is concerned, but other questions are raised by the demurrer which are vital to the plaintiffs' right of recovery against M. B. Classon, and which will necessarily arise upon an amendment of the complaint. We deem it our duty, therefore, to look further into the case, in order that the rights of the parties may be determined without unnecessary delay or expense.

The complaint avers in substance that the firm of A. B. & C. L. Classon being indebted to the plaintiffs in the sum of $295.50, and to other persons in divers other sums, sold and delivered to the defendant Michael B. Classon certain goods, wares, and merchandise, etc., comprising all the stock in trade, notes, and book accounts, etc., of the firm, in consideration whereof said Michael B. Classon agreed to and with said A. B. & C. L. Classon to pay certain of their debts; with others, the said debt of the plaintiffs. That in consideration and pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, said Michael B. Classon afterwards promised and agreed to and with these plaintiffs to pay them their said debt.

The promise by Michael B. Classon to A. B. & C. L. Classon to pay the plaintiffs' debts, is an original promise based upon a valuable consideration, namely, the sale and delivery of the stock of goods, etc. The question is whether the plaintiffs can avail themselves of this promise by maintaining an action upon it in their own names. If they can, the other averments as to the promise directly to them will be mere surplusage. The authorities on this question are far from uniform either in England or the United States, and in view of the able discussions of the question which are found in the books, we need not consider it at length. The right of the plaintiffs to sue under circumstances of this kind is sustained by many authorities, but a few of which need be referred to. 1 Chit. Pl. 4; 1 Parsons, Cont. (5th Ed.) 466-8, and authorities cited in notes; Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. 432; Same v. Same, 9 Cow. 639; D. & H. Canal Co. v. W. Co. Bank, 4 Duer, 97; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N. Y. 268, and authorities cited; Arnold v. Lyman, 17 Mass. 400; Carnegie v. Morrison, 2 Metc. 381; Crocker v. Stone, 7 Cush. 341; Hind v. Holdship, 2 Watts, 104...