Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Required Joinder Of Claims, William Wirt Blume May 1947

Required Joinder Of Claims, William Wirt Blume

Michigan Law Review

There are three principal reasons for requiring the joinder of claims: (1) To prevent the evils of a multiplicity of suits. (2) To eliminate the possibility of more than one recovery on one liability. (3) To make possible the ranking of claims and a pro rata distribution of property. In this paper the writer will undertake a brief survey of the common situations in which joinder of claims is or may be required, with the object of indicating the extent to which the practice is bottomed on the principle of preventing unnecessary suits.


Duress Through Civil Litigation: Ii, John P. Dawson Apr 1947

Duress Through Civil Litigation: Ii, John P. Dawson

Michigan Law Review

Where litigation has progressed to the stage of a final judgment under which execution is immediately available, the initial obstacles already suggested to relief for duress appear to exist in magnified form. The judgment itself establishes the legitimacy of the original demand. Though the coercion threatened is immediate, it has been supplied by general rules of procedure for the specific purpose of compelling satisfaction. It appears from numerous decisions and is even more frequently assumed that a settlement induced by threat of immediate issuance of execution under a valid, final money judgment cannot be duress, whatever the nature of the …


Duress Through Civil Litigation: I, John P. Dawson Mar 1947

Duress Through Civil Litigation: I, John P. Dawson

Michigan Law Review

Duress through the use of civil litigation provides a convenient starting point for an analysis of modern doctrines of economic duress. The propriety of this form of pressure, used alone or in conjunction with other means of coercion, may become an issue in a variety of situations in which relief for duress is asked. At the same time it is in this area that the extension of duress as a remedial principle has encountered the greatest resistance.


Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed. Mar 1947

Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut sued defendant, a citizen of Ohio, for injuries received when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant. Defendant removed the case from a Connecticut state court to a federal district court and then obtained an order citing plaintiff's husband, a citizen of Connecticut and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had no claim against the third party by Connecticut substantive law which does not recognize contribution between tort-feasors. …