Peery v. Harper
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court Plaintiff commenced suit by attachment against Harper, and by summons against Smith. The ground of attachment against Harper was, that he was a non-resident of this State. Harper appeared, filed his plea in abatement, and the issue was found for him. Smith did not appear. Harper then put in his answer, alleging that neither plaintiff nor defendants were residents of Polk county, etc.
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The only point saved by the record is the action of the court in striking out defendants’ answer. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in Polk county; and one of the defendants, Smith, resided in Henry county, and the other defendant, Harper, resided in Saline county.
Harper appeared and filed his answer, stating that neither the plaintiff nor defendants resided in Polk county, and prayed that the case be dismissed. This answer was stricken out, on motion of plaintiff’s attorney, because it was not responsive to the petition, and because it was irrelevant, redundant, and frivolous. No further…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Columbia Brewery Co. v. ForgeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Fare v. GunterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Yoakum v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- Smith v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Grier v. FoxMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.