State ex rel. Peterbilt Co. v. Litz

Missouri Court of Appeals

State ex rel. Peterbilt Co. v. Litz

569 S.W.2d 387, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2780

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 25, 1978

DocketNo. 39604

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 569 S.W.2d 387 (State ex rel. Peterbilt Co. v. Litz) 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

State ex rel. Peterbilt Co. v. Litz, 569 S.W.2d 387, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2780 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Relator sought a writ of prohibition against respondent judge to prevent the court from proceeding under service which relator contended was void. We issued our preliminary writ. Subsequent thereto this court, upon request, amended its preliminary writ to allow the addition of parties and issuance of additional summons. Plaintiff in the underlying action then had issued an alias summons directed to Paccar, Inc. a/k/a Peterbilt Company. The original summons was directed to “Peterbilt Company, Inc.” Relator states in its Petition for Alternative Writ of Prohibition that Peter-bilt is an unincorporated division of Paccar, Inc., a corporation.

The matter is now moot. Issuance of the alias summons was an abandonment of the original service. State ex rel. Masada Seisakusko Company Ltd. v. Moss, 548 S.W.2d 185 (Mo.App.1977). Our preliminary writ was directed to the original service. Relator contends that the alias summons is also invalid. That is not before us. The original service has been abandoned; our writ reached only that service; the matter is moot. See, State ex rel. Masada Seisakusko Company Ltd., supra. The preliminary writ is quashed.

CLEMENS, P. J., and McMILLIAN, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Relator sought a writ of prohibition against respondent judge to prevent the court from proceeding under service which relator contended was void. We issued our preliminary writ. Subsequent thereto this court, upon request, amended its preliminary writ to allow the addition of parties and issuance of additional summons. Plaintiff in the underlying action then had issued an alias summons directed to Paccar, Inc. a/k/a Peterbilt Company. The original summons was directed to “Peterbilt Company, Inc.” Relator states in its Petition for Alternative Writ of Prohibition that Peter-bilt is an unincorporated division of Paccar, Inc., a corporation.

The matter is now moot. Issuance of the alias summons was an abandonment of the original service. State ex rel. Masada Seisakusko Company Ltd. v. Moss, 548 S.W.2d 185 (Mo.App.1977). Our preliminary writ was directed to the original service. Relator contends that the alias summons is also invalid. That is not before us. The original service has been abandoned; our writ reached only that service; the matter is moot. See, State ex rel. Masada Seisakusko Company Ltd., supra. The preliminary writ is quashed.

CLEMENS, P. J., and McMILLIAN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

569 S.W.2d 387, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-peterbilt-co-v-litz-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack