Court Opinion

ID: 9588748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:38:10.799795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:14.067463
License: Public Domain

Smith, Judge,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent because I cannot agree that Free Flow is an indispensable party. Industrial’s case against Siemens depends upon whether the fax from Schultz constitutes a guaranty, i.e., it depends upon whether any guaranty existed. If it did, Industrial had the right to bring an action against Siemens severally. If no guaranty existed, then Siemens is not responsible at all. In either case, Free Flow is not an indispensable party, and the merits of the dispute between Free Flow and Siemens are being litigated in another action. Because Free Flow was not an indispensable party, the trial court erred in dismissing the action on that basis.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Eldridge join in this dissent.