Case Name: A. D. HUFFMASTER v. JNO. G. PAYNE ET AL., and C. M. STARNES AND WIFE v. ABRAM MOLSBEE ET AL.
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1880-09
Citations: 3 Shan. Cas. 119
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. D. HUFFMASTER v. JNO. G. PAYNE ET AL., and C. M. STARNES AND WIFE v. ABRAM MOLSBEE ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Cases with Notes and Annotations
Volume: 3
Pages: 119–120

Head Matter:
A. D. HUFFMASTER v. JNO. G. PAYNE ET AL., and C. M. STARNES AND WIFE v. ABRAM MOLSBEE ET AL.
Knoxville,
September Term, 1880.
CHANCERY PLEADING AND PRACTICE. New parties made by cross-bill, but not by answer as cross-bill.
While in a proper case, new parties may be brought into a cause by a cross-bill proper, still they cannot be so brought into the cause by an answer hied as a cross-bill. The answer can be filed as a cross-bill only as ag’ainst a complainant. [See notes 8-10 under sec. 6133 of the Code, and notes generally under said section.]
Cited with approval: ■ Hildebrand v. Beasley, 7 Heis., .121 (departing from the rule laid down in ,2 Dan. Chy. PI. and Pr., 1548, and Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. (58 U. S.), 145 [15 L. ed., 163]); Odom v. Odom, 2 Bax., 446; Masson v. Anderson, 3 Bax., 300; Hall v. Fowlkes, 9 Ileis., 745.
Cited and construed: Code (1858), secs. 4323, 4409; Shannon’s Code, secs. 6133, 6219.
Appeal from the chancery court of Hawkins county.
McDermott & Kyle, for ITuffmaster; W. P. Grillen-water, for Molsbee et al.

Opinion:
Deaderick, Ch. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The questions in this case arise upon the demurrers of defendant Molsbee to the answer of Starnes and wife, filed as a cross-bill. . The' only ground of demurrer necessary to be noticed i§ that defendant Molsbee is not a party complainant or defendant to the original bill. The chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the cross-bill as to defendant IVlolsbee, and the complainants therein, Starnes and wife, have appealed to this court.
This court has held that in a proper case hew parties may be brought, into a cause by a cross-bill proper, depart ing from the rule laid down in 2 Danl. Chy. Pl. and Pr., 1543, and [Shields v. Barrow], 17 Howard (58 U. S.), 145 [15 L. ed., 163]; [Hildebrand v. Beasley], 1 Heis., 121.
We have also several times held where the answer is tiled as cross-bill, this will not be allowed. [Odom v. Odom], 2 Bax., 446; [Masson v. Anderson], 3 Bax., 300; [Hall v. Fowlkes], 9 Heis., 745.
This holding arises'from the phraseology of the statutes, and their_ manifest intent that this procedure, authorized alone by our statutes, should be used only as against a complainant. See Code, secs. 4323, 4409 [Shannon's Code, secs. 6133, 6219],
The chancellor's decree sustaining the demurrer to the cross-bill and dismissing the same as to defendant Molsbee is affirmed.