Fowler & Wild v. Williams

62 Mo. 403
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMay 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 62 Mo. 403 (Fowler & Wild v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fowler & Wild v. Williams, 62 Mo. 403 (Mo. 1876).

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs, by their firm name, commenced an action against the defendant before a justice of the peace.

In the justice’s court the parties appeared, and after the evidence was heard, a verdict was rendered for the defendant. Plaintiffs then paid the costs and took an appeal to the circuit court. In the latter court both parties appeared, and by mutual consent and agreement the case was referred. The referee took the testimony and reported in favor of the plaintiffs. No exceptions were taken to the report, and it was confirmed and judgment rendered thereon. Defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, on the sole ground that the plaintiff’s individual names were not set. out. ■

The court overruled the motion in arrest, and that is the only point disclosed by the record. An action, to be pi*operly brought, should be commenced in the chiistian and surnames of the parties. But where the declaration is in the name of a firm, if advantage is sought to be taken of the defect, it should be done by a suitable motion before the tidal is closed, so as to give the parties an opportunity to amend. If no such motion is made, and the cause proceeds to judgment, the judgment will not be void, but will be good after verdict.

Whether a judgment could be sustained against a firm, where the individual names wore not inserted in the petition, is another and very different question, which we are not called xxpon to consider*.

* Parties ought not to be encouraged in taking their chances in legal proceedings, and in indncing the court and the opposite party to believe that they have waived mere irx*egularities, and then, when they are defeated, rely upon them as a last resort.

The judgment should be affirmed. All .the other judgeB concur, except Judge Tories, who is absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Unifund CCR Partners v. Kinnamon
384 S.W.3d 703 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)
Sims v. Freeman
641 S.W.2d 197 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)
Haney v. Thomson
98 S.W.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1936)
Weldon v. Fisher
186 S.W. 1153 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1916)
Yarbrough v. Pugh
114 P. 918 (Washington Supreme Court, 1911)
Wegner v. Gray
122 S.W. 755 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Neiswanger v. Ord
105 P. 17 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1909)
Ives v. Muhlenburg
135 Ill. App. 517 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Moses P. Johnson Machinery Co. v. Watson
57 Mo. App. 629 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1894)
State ex rel. Gracy v. Bank of Neosho
25 S.W. 372 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
B. S. Williams & Co. v. Kitchen
43 Mo. App. 338 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Garrett v. Cramer
14 Mo. App. 401 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1883)
Davis v. Kline
76 Mo. 310 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 Mo. 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-wild-v-williams-mo-1876.