Oldfield v. Giblin

Missouri Court of Appeals

Oldfield v. Giblin

595 S.W.2d 447, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1980

DocketNo. WD30992

StatusPublished

This text of 595 S.W.2d 447 (Oldfield v. Giblin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oldfield v. Giblin, 595 S.W.2d 447, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

WASSERSTROM, Chief Judge.

Appellant filed this suit in the Circuit Court to recover for the wrongful death of his adult son who died unmarried and without children. Respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds that appellant had no capacity to sue and that suit could only be by duly appointed personal representative of the deceased son. The trial court denied that motion on condition that appellant within thirty days open an estate for the deceased son and substitute [448]*448the administrator as plaintiff. When appellant was unable to comply with those conditions, respondent moved to dismiss the action, which motion was sustained by the trial court. Appellant now appeals from that action.

The ruling in question was error. Cannada v. Moore, 578 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. banc 1979); Sybert v. Irvine, 585 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App.1979). The order of dismissal is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate this cause on its docket for further proceedings preparatory to a trial on the merits.

All concur.

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

WASSERSTROM, Chief Judge.

Appellant filed this suit in the Circuit Court to recover for the wrongful death of his adult son who died unmarried and without children. Respondent moved for summary judgment on the grounds that appellant had no capacity to sue and that suit could only be by duly appointed personal representative of the deceased son. The trial court denied that motion on condition that appellant within thirty days open an estate for the deceased son and substitute [448]*448the administrator as plaintiff. When appellant was unable to comply with those conditions, respondent moved to dismiss the action, which motion was sustained by the trial court. Appellant now appeals from that action.

The ruling in question was error. Cannada v. Moore, 578 S.W.2d 597 (Mo. banc 1979); Sybert v. Irvine, 585 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App.1979). The order of dismissal is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate this cause on its docket for further proceedings preparatory to a trial on the merits.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

595 S.W.2d 447, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oldfield-v-giblin-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack