Sater v. Hunt

Missouri Court of Appeals

Sater v. Hunt

61 Mo. App. 228, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 41

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 61 Mo. App. 228 (Sater v. Hunt) 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

Sater v. Hunt, 61 Mo. App. 228, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 41 (Mo. Ct. App. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff brought this suit against Samuel L. Hunt and Minnie B. Hunt, husband and wife, and mortgagors of certain real estate, and against J. W. Raymond, the terre tenant. The object of the suit is to obtain ,a personal judgment on the note secured by the mortgage against the two Hunts, who were makers, and to foreclose the mortgage. The defendant Raymond answered, admitting the allegations of the petition. The defendant Samuel L. Hunt did not plead. The defendant Minnie B. Hunt interposed a general demurrer to the petition. The court sustained this demurrer, and, .upon the plaintiff refusing to plead any further, the court made final judgment in favor of Minnie L. Hunt without making any disposition whatever of the other defendants. Prom this judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties to the action, and only one final judgment can be rendered,therein. R. S. 1889, secs. 2206, 2213. Such a judgment, to warrant an appeal, must make some disposition of all the defendants. Caulfield v. Farish, 24 Mo. App. 110; Merchants’ Exchange Mutual Benevolent Association v. Sessinghaus, 59 Mo. [230]*230App. 106. Although the demurrer of Minnie B. Hunt was erroneously sustained, as far as we are at present advised, yet, if plaintiff desired to appeal from that judgment of the court, he should have either dismissed, as to the other defendants, or else prosecuted his action against them to final judgment, and then taken his appeal. As the record now stands, the case is still pending in the lower court against the two other defendants. Appeals on a partial disposition of a cause are warranted only in the cases provided for by the act of April 18, 1891 (Laws, 1891, p. 70).

It results that we must dismiss this appeal as prematurely taken. The plaintiff may bring the case here by writ of error after he has made final disposition of all the parties in one of the other of the modes above suggested.

All the judges concurring, the appeal is dismissed.

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

Rombauer, P. J.

The plaintiff brought this suit against Samuel L. Hunt and Minnie B. Hunt, husband and wife, and mortgagors of certain real estate, and against J. W. Raymond, the terre tenant. The object of the suit is to obtain ,a personal judgment on the note secured by the mortgage against the two Hunts, who were makers, and to foreclose the mortgage. The defendant Raymond answered, admitting the allegations of the petition. The defendant Samuel L. Hunt did not plead. The defendant Minnie B. Hunt interposed a general demurrer to the petition. The court sustained this demurrer, and, .upon the plaintiff refusing to plead any further, the court made final judgment in favor of Minnie L. Hunt without making any disposition whatever of the other defendants. Prom this judgment the plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

A judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties to the action, and only one final judgment can be rendered,therein. R. S. 1889, secs. 2206, 2213. Such a judgment, to warrant an appeal, must make some disposition of all the defendants. Caulfield v. Farish, 24 Mo. App. 110; Merchants’ Exchange Mutual Benevolent Association v. Sessinghaus, 59 Mo. [230]*230App. 106. Although the demurrer of Minnie B. Hunt was erroneously sustained, as far as we are at present advised, yet, if plaintiff desired to appeal from that judgment of the court, he should have either dismissed, as to the other defendants, or else prosecuted his action against them to final judgment, and then taken his appeal. As the record now stands, the case is still pending in the lower court against the two other defendants. Appeals on a partial disposition of a cause are warranted only in the cases provided for by the act of April 18, 1891 (Laws, 1891, p. 70).

It results that we must dismiss this appeal as prematurely taken. The plaintiff may bring the case here by writ of error after he has made final disposition of all the parties in one of the other of the modes above suggested.

All the judges concurring, the appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 Mo. App. 228, 1895 Mo. App. LEXIS 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sater-v-hunt-moctapp-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack