Clearwater v. Meredith
62 U.S. 489 (1858)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Clearwater v. Meredith, 62 U.S. 21 How. 489 489 (1858)

Clearwater v. Meredith

62 U.S. (21 How.) 489

Syllabus

Where four persons made a contract with a citizen of Ohio, and three of the four were citizens of Indiana, and suit was brought against the three in the Circuit Court of the United States for Indiana, the nonjoinder of the fourth was justified by the act of 1839, 5 Stat. 321

The decision at the present term, in the case of Hill v. Smith, again affirmed.

On the 18th of March, 1857, Hiram Clearwater, a citizen of Ohio, brought a suit against Johnson Meredith, and Tyner, citizens of Indiana; and in the declaration said, that the

"defendants, together with one Caleb B. Smith, who, at the time of the commencement of this suit, was not a citizen of the State of Indiana, and is therefore not joined as a defendant herein, made and delivered to the plaintiff their certain written agreement,"

&c.

The cause of action was a written agreement, signed by the four persons above named, guaranteeing that the stock in a railroad company should be at par within a certain time, in consideration that Clearwater had executed a deed of conveyance of land to Meredith, to whom the same had been sold by the company, Clearwater having previously contracted to sell it to the company.

The three defendants named in the caption appeared and filed the following demurrer:

"The said defendants, by counsel, come and say the declaration of the said plaintiff, and the several counts therein contained, are severally insufficient in law to enable said plaintiff to have and maintain his action against said defendants, and for cause of demurrer shows to the court the following:"

"1. The jurisdiction of the court is not shown by proper averment."

"2. No sufficient consideration is shown for the undertaking."

"3. The several counts do not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. "

Page 62 U. S. 490

This demurrer was sustained by the court below, and a writ of error brought this ruling before this Court.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.