Taylor v. Stockwell
| Decision Date | 06 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 774 |
| Citation | 145 P. 743,22 Wyo. 492 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. STOCKWELL ET AL |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Original Opinion of January 18, 1915, Reported at: 22 Wyo. 492.
Rehearing denied.
B. F. Griffith and Wilfrid O'Leary, for defendants in error.
On petition for rehearing counsel cited the following additional authorities on the question of misjoinder: Appeal of Cumberland Valley R. Co., 62 Pa. St. 218; Scheiffer v. Eau Claire City, 51 Wis. 385; Trompen v. Yates, (Neb.) 92 N.W. 649; R. R. Co. v. Haber, (Kan.) 44 P. 632; Oliver v. Pratt, 3 How. 333; Webster v. R. R. Co., (Mo.) 22 S.W. 474; Wiliams v. Crabb, 117 F. 203. And the following authorities in support of the proposition that if there was a misjoinder the defect was without injury and harmless and should not be ground for reversal: Gilland v. U. P. R. Co., 6 Wyo. 185; Rogers v. P. M. Co., 154 F. 614; S. N. B. Co. v. Sprague, 8 F. 377; Kelley v. Boettcher, 85 F. 55; Wash. Co. v. Williams, 111 F. 815; Watson v. Bonfils, 116 F. 159; I. C. R. Co. v. Caffrey, 128 F. 775; W. A. B. Co. v. R. R. Co., 137 F. 31; F. & D. Co. v. F. T. Co., 143 F. 156; Bracken v. Rosenthal, 151 F. 137; Reynolds v. Lincoln, 71 Cal. 183; Angell v. Hopkins, 79 Cal. 181; Merrill v. Lake, 16 Ohio 373, 47 Am. Dec. 377; Boburg v. Prahl, 3 Wyo. 325, 23 P. 70.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
The opinion in this case is reported in 145 P. 743. The defendants in error have filed a petition for a rehearing and allege the following grounds therefor: First, that error was not committed; and second, that if error was committed it was harmless, and therefore not sufficient grounds for reversal. This petition does not disclose that any new point is here raised and their brief merely contains a new discussion of misjoinder and the effect thereof, and by a reference to the opinion filed both questions were covered and decided. We have, however, looked into the case further in view of the brief in support of the petition and do not recede from the views expressed in the opinion filed.
Rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. C. M. & W. Drilling Co.
...Accident Commission, 170 Cal. 793, 151 P. 421; Rahfeldt v. Swanson, 155 Neb. 482, 52 N.W.2d 261, 266. See also Taylor v. Stockwell, 22 Wyo. 492, 145 P. 743, 747, 147 P. 328. In Eikel v. Voris, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 963, 967, the court 'The plaintiffs likewise complain of the Deputy Commissioner......