TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Fowler & Wild v. Williams

Fowler & Wild v. Maston J. Williams

Fowler & Wild v. Williams, 62 Mo. 403 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1876
Judges
Wagner
Citations
62 Mo. 403
Headnotes
1. Practice, civil — Pleadings—Suit by firm name — When objection should be made. — After judgment it is too late to object that plaintiifs brought suit in tlieir firm name; if advantage is sought therefrom, it should be made' by suitable motion before the trial is closed. Qeere, whether a judgment could be sustained against a firm where the individual names were not set out in the petition.
Summary
Appeal from, Livingston Circuit Cowrt. I. The judgment is irregular, and the motion in arrest should have been sustained. (Revis vs. Lamme & Bro., 2 Mo., ' 207; Rohrbough & Co. vs. Reed Bros., 57 Mo., 293.) I. The defendant could only have taken advantage of the error by plea in abatement. (Hawley vs. Blanton, 1 Mo., 49 ; Boise vs. Langham, 1 Mo., 572 ; Thompson vs. Elliot, 5 Mo., 118.)

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wagner

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiffs, by their firm name, commenced an action against the defendant before a justice of the peace.

In the justice’s court the parties appeared, and after the evidence was heard, a verdict was rendered for the defendant. Plaintiffs then paid the costs and took an appeal to the circuit court. In the latter court both parties appeared, and by mutual consent and agreement the case was referred. The referee took the testimony and reported in favor of the plaintiffs. No exceptions were taken to the report, and it was confirmed and judgment rendered thereon. Defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, on the sole ground that the plaintiff’s individual names were not set. out. ■

The court overruled the motion in arrest, and that is the only point disclosed by the record. An action, to be pi*operly brought, should be commenced in the chiistian and surnames of the parties. But where the declaration is in the name of a firm, if advantage is sought to be taken of the defect, it should be done by a suitable motion before the tidal is closed, so as to give the parties an opportunity to amend. If no such motion is made, and the cause proceeds to judgment, the judgment will not be void, but will be good after verdict.

Whether a judgment could be sustained against a firm, where the individual names wore not inserted in the petition, is another and very different question, which we are not called xxpon to consider*.

* Parties ought not to be encouraged in taking their chances in legal proceedings, and in indncing the court and the opposite party to believe that they have waived mere irx*egularities, and then, when they are defeated, rely upon them as a last resort.

The judgment should be affirmed. All .the other judgeB concur, except Judge Tories, who is absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 21890–1891: 11894–1895: 21906–1907: 11908–1909: 21910–1911: 11916–1917: 11936–1937: 11982–1983: 12012–2013: 118822026peak 1882 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Unifund CCR Partners v. Kinnamon384 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)
  2. Moses P. Johnson Machinery Co. v. Watson57 Mo. App. 629 (1894)
  3. Ives v. Muhlenburg135 Ill. App. 517 (1907)
  4. Weldon v. Fisher186 S.W. 1153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1916)
  5. State ex rel. Gracy v. Bank of Neosho25 S.W. 372 (Mo. 1894)
  6. Haney v. Thomson98 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Unifund CCR Partners v. Kinnamon384 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)
  2. Sims v. Freeman641 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)
  3. Haney v. Thomson98 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1936)
  4. Weldon v. Fisher186 S.W. 1153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1916)
  5. Yarbrough v. Pugh114 P. 918 (Wash. 1911)
  6. Wegner v. Gray122 S.W. 755 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list