Bury v. City of St. Louis
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This was an action on the case brought by appellant, in the St. Louis court of common pleas against the appellee. The declaration contained three counts. The two first counts were substantially the same, differing mainly in this, that the first stated the case more fully in detail, the second more concisely.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This was an action on the case brought by appellant, in the St. Louis court of common pleas against the appellee. The declaration contained three counts. The two first counts were substantially the same, differing mainly in this, that the first stated the case more fully in detail, the second more concisely. The case stated in these two counts was, in substance, that on the 5th of January, 1846, .one Stewart Mathews made a contract with the appellee, to erect and finish for her a hospital in the city of St. Louis, by a…
1Opinion of the Court
McBride, judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The question presented for our consideration is, whether after a plaintiff has given evidence conducing to prove the facts charged in his declaration, the court is authorized, either on the motion of the defendant, or of its own accord, to instruct the jury that the plaintiff cannot recover, for the reason that his declaration sets out no cause of action, or sets it out defectively ?
There are two modes treated of in the books on pleadings, by which a defendant can avail himself of defects in the declaration; one is by demurrer to the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gamage v. BushellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876