Brewer v. Swartz
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) The petition in this case did not authorize a recovery of a money judgment against the defendant, for the reason that no judgment was asked for the recovery of any sum of money, the only prayer being for a dissolution of a partnership, etc. Nor are such facts stated in the petition as to enable the defendant or the court to ascertain the amount demanded. E. S. 1899, sec. 592; Carter v. Shotwell, 42 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. E. P. Gates, Judge. (1) The petition in this case did not authorize a recovery of a money judgment against the defendant, for the reason that no judgment was asked for the recovery of any sum of money, the only prayer being for a dissolution of a partnership, etc. Nor are such facts stated in the petition as to enable the defendant or the court to ascertain the amount demanded. E. S. 1899, sec. 592; Carter v. Shotwell, 42 Mo. App. 663; Miltenberg v. Morrison, 39 Mo. 71; Meyers v. Eield, 37 Mo. 434. (2) The counterclaim set up by defendant in his…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddus, J.
We gather from the record that prior-to the first day of March, 1893, the plaintiff and defendant were partners as wholesale lumber merchants and that on said day the co-partnership was dissolved and the partnership matters adjusted. By the terms of the settlement defendant was to pay the plaintiff a certain sum, to pay all the outstanding debts of the concern and to succeed to all the rights and property of said partnership. At said settlement there were special agreements as to certain matters which gave rise to this suit. These agreements were two in number and were evidenced by writing as…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brewer v. SwartzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3Cited by1 opinion
- St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. GosnellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909