Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. Burr

State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. Burr

44 S.W. 1045, 143 Mo. 209, 1898 Mo. LEXIS 223
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 44 S.W. 1045 (State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. Burr) 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
State ex rel. Ziegenhein v. Burr, 44 S.W. 1045, 143 Mo. 209, 1898 Mo. LEXIS 223 (Mo. 1898).

Opinion

Gantt, P. J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis by William E. Burr, the curator of the estate of Benton Brant, a minor. By mistake, Mr. Burr’s name was written William E. Barr, instead of Burr in the petition, but the process was duly served upon Mr. Burr and he appeared and answered. The certified tax bill contained the same error in the name of the curator but indicated the person as curator of Benton Brant and the defendant in his answer disclosed that he was in fact curator of said Benton Brant and continued to be such until after the taxes sued for were levied and had become due, to wit, September 16, 1889. The misnomer of the defendant after due service upon him and after a trial upon the merits is effectually cured by our statute of jeofails. Having appeared by his right name and made his defense on the merits the defendant is bound by the judgment. Parry v. Woodson, 33 Mo. 348; Kronski v. Railroad, 77 Mo. 370; Chamberlain v. Blodgett, 96 Mo. 482; R. S. 1889, sec. 2113.

II. The action is prosecuted against the curator for the taxes assessed against him on the property, $16,300, in his hands belonging to his ward Benton Brant for the year 1889. Section 7626, Revised Statutes Missouri, 1889, provides that ‘ ‘personal taxes assessed on and after June 1, 1887, shall constitute a debt for which a personal judgment may be recovered in the circuit courts of this State, against the party assessed with said taxes. All actions commenced under this law shall be prosecuted .......against the person or persons named in the tax bill and said taxes shall be set forth in a tax bill of said personal back taxes, duly authenticated by a certificate of the collector and filed with the ■petition,” etc. Accompanying the petition in this case was the following certified tax bill;

[213]*213

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

Related

Slavens v. William C. Haas Co.
563 S.W.2d 157 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1978)
State Ex Rel. Rudder v. Haphe
31 S.W.2d 788 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
State ex rel. Rice v. Packard
157 S.W. 598 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
State ex rel. Karrenbrock v. Mississippi Valley Trust Co.
108 S.W. 97 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1908)
State ex rel. Brown v. Hamilton
100 S.W. 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State ex rel. Hamilton v. Brown
72 S.W. 640 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Kansas City v. Simpson
90 Mo. App. 50 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 S.W. 1045, 143 Mo. 209, 1898 Mo. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-ziegenhein-v-burr-mo-1898.