Court Opinion

ID: 9589501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:45:18.311667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:25.342539
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
concurring specially. As I construe the petition, it is a money rule against the officers for the amount of money *381received and retained by each. It is not a rule against the solicitor-general for all moneys paid out without an order of court, and it is not an action in tort against all of the officers jointly for the total amount involved. It therefore follows that the question of misjoinder of parties is a question not before this court on the ruling on general demurrer, and so far as I am concerned I will not join in a ruling which in effect holds that there is no misjoinder of parties, the result of which may be that the parties are precluded from making this point on the hearing of the special demurrers either on the ground that the 1949 law is unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to provide for the making of parties regardless of residence in certain instances, or for any other reason they see fit to urge.