Wegenschiede v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Daniel G. Taylor, Judge. (1) (a) Tbe demurrers to tbe evidence should bave been sustained, because there was no- evidence of tbe appointment or qualification of a next friend to maintain the suit, or that tbe suit wa,s prosecuted by a next friend.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — No». Daniel G. Taylor, Judge. (1) (a) Tbe demurrers to tbe evidence should bave been sustained, because there was no- evidence of tbe appointment or qualification of a next friend to maintain the suit, or that tbe suit wa,s prosecuted by a next friend. Porter v. Railroad, 60 MO'. 160; Casler v. Chase, 160 Mo. 418, 60 S. W. 1040; Cohn v. Railway, 182 Mo. 577, 81 S. W. 846. (b) Tbe demurrers to- tbe evidence should bave been sustained, for tbe reason that tbe plaintiff in unnecessarily standing upon tbe bottom step of a moving car, was guilty of such…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant offered an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence. The refusal of the court to give this instruction is assigned as error. Plaintiff is under age and prosecuted her suit by and through her next friend, John B. Muth, whom the petition alleged had been appointed her next friend “by order of the court.” No proof of the appointment of Muth was offered, and for this reason defendant contends that its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence should have been given. The answer is a…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Porter v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Hinzeman v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- Casler v. ChaseSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Herndon v. LewisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Farrell v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.