McClanahan v. Boggess
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry L. \Bright, Judge. (1) The second amended answer which was filed as aforesaid after the case was tried and which we contended changed the defense, and should not have been allowed we are not advised just what effect this filing of this answer had upon the court. We are aware that the allowance of amendments is in a large degree in the discretion of the court but that they are not entirely so and may be refused.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry L. \Bright, Judge. (1) The second amended answer which was filed as aforesaid after the case was tried and which we contended changed the defense, and should not have been allowed we are not advised just what effect this filing of this answer had upon the court. We are aware that the allowance of amendments is in a large degree in the discretion of the court but that they are not entirely so and may be refused. Joyce v. Growney, 154 Mo. 263; Garton v. Canada, 39 Mo. 222; Irwin v. Childs, 28 Mo. 576. (2) It is also true that our statutes are…
1Opinion of the CourtCox, J.
This action is really for money had and received. Trial before the court without a jury, issues found for defendant and plaintiff has appealed.
*603The petition alleges that plaintiff wás the owner of a one-eighth interest in a mining lease on the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter, section 28, township 28, range 32, in Jasper county and that defendant and others owned the other seven-eighths. That 'ten acrés of said land, to-wit: the southeast ten acres of the tract was sold for $7512.74, and this sum was paid to defendant Boggess who had refused to pay plaintiff his one-eighth part…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Chambers v. HinesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1921
- Scheerer v. WaltnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1931
- Loveland Records v. Chapman ElliottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924