Seaboard National Bank v. Wright's Trustee

Missouri Court of Appeals

Seaboard National Bank v. Wright's Trustee

68 Mo. App. 144, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 503

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 68 Mo. App. 144 (Seaboard National Bank v. Wright's Trustee) 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

Seaboard National Bank v. Wright's Trustee, 68 Mo. App. 144, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 503 (Mo. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Eombauee, P. J.

The plaintiff brought suit as assignee of the Barber Asphalt Paving Company on a certain special tax bill for street improvements, which the petition claims is a lien on the defendants’ property. Nothing appeared on the face of the petition showing that the tax bill was invalid, although the ordinance under which the work was done and subsequent steps taken were set out with needless particularity.

The defendants demurred to the petition on the following grounds:

ilFirst. Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“Second. The Barber Asphalt Paving Company, assignor of plaintiff, could not have or maintain any action in the state of Missouri.

u Third. ’ The ordinance upon which plaintiff’s alleged cause of action is based is illegal, null, and void.”

The court sustained the demurrer on the first and third grounds therein stated, and overruled it as to the second. The plaintiff refusing to plead any further, the court rendered judgment against it on demurrer. Hence this appeal.

[146]*146Dpkadi«gK: We are at a loss to conceive on what theory this demurrer was sustained. The petition would have been good even if it had only stated in general terms that the tax bill was duly issued by the city of St. Louis to plaintiff’s assignor, that it was assigned to the plaintiff, and that the defendant was owner of the lot charged thereby. Turner v. Patton, 54 Mo. App. 654. Since no facts showing its invalidity are stated in the petition, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to anticipate and avoid in that pleading any defenses that the answer might set up. On a demurrer to a petition the facts well pleaded are admitted. Verdin v. City of St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26, and extraneous matters can not be considered. Mussur v. Adler, 86 Mo. 445. These must be set up in the answer.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

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

Eombauee, P. J.

The plaintiff brought suit as assignee of the Barber Asphalt Paving Company on a certain special tax bill for street improvements, which the petition claims is a lien on the defendants’ property. Nothing appeared on the face of the petition showing that the tax bill was invalid, although the ordinance under which the work was done and subsequent steps taken were set out with needless particularity.

The defendants demurred to the petition on the following grounds:

ilFirst. Petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

“Second. The Barber Asphalt Paving Company, assignor of plaintiff, could not have or maintain any action in the state of Missouri.

u Third. ’ The ordinance upon which plaintiff’s alleged cause of action is based is illegal, null, and void.”

The court sustained the demurrer on the first and third grounds therein stated, and overruled it as to the second. The plaintiff refusing to plead any further, the court rendered judgment against it on demurrer. Hence this appeal.

[146]*146Dpkadi«gK: We are at a loss to conceive on what theory this demurrer was sustained. The petition would have been good even if it had only stated in general terms that the tax bill was duly issued by the city of St. Louis to plaintiff’s assignor, that it was assigned to the plaintiff, and that the defendant was owner of the lot charged thereby. Turner v. Patton, 54 Mo. App. 654. Since no facts showing its invalidity are stated in the petition, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to anticipate and avoid in that pleading any defenses that the answer might set up. On a demurrer to a petition the facts well pleaded are admitted. Verdin v. City of St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26, and extraneous matters can not be considered. Mussur v. Adler, 86 Mo. 445. These must be set up in the answer.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 Mo. App. 144, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-national-bank-v-wrights-trustee-moctapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack