Hill v. Patterson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Lubke, Judge. The trial court thought as the bond read the appeal was taken by L. Hallock for himself and his co-defendants, that if the judgment was affirmed as to any of the defendants, the judgment must be against the bondsmen.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. George W. Lubke, Judge. The trial court thought as the bond read the appeal was taken by L. Hallock for himself and his co-defendants, that if the judgment was affirmed as to any of the defendants, the judgment must be against the bondsmen. To sustain that view the words “ for himself and his co-defendants ” must be the controlling words of the bond, and as the bond and affidavit must be construed together, to say nothing of the intention of the appellant, it seems to us that such a construction is very narrow. We think the words are mere…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This action was brought before a justice of the peace, against Benjamin O. Patterson, J. A. Patterson and George N. Truesdale, original contractors, to *172recover a judgment against them for certain work done upon a house for the building of which they were contractors; and, also, against E. V. P. Ritter, Charles H. Schureman, Thomas H. Haggerty, Leander Hallock and Alfred S. Ferguson, as owners of said house, to enforce a mechanic’s lien against the same and the lot on which it is situated. When the cause was called for trial before the justice, the plaintiffs appeared and dismissed as to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. ChapmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stevenson v. Standard Adding Machine Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Norton v. GiffinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926