Pond v. Huling
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to Jackson Circuit' Court. — Hon. James H. Sloven, Judge. (1) Plaintiff’s reply to defendant’s second amended answer is insufficient in every respect and contains only conclusions of law and thereby becomes an admission of the facts as set up in defendant’s second amended answer. Our Supreme Court has especially held such answers bad, and that the defendant is in no case compelled to file a motion to make such answers more definite and certain or sufficient.
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson Circuit' Court. — Hon. James H. Sloven, Judge. (1) Plaintiff’s reply to defendant’s second amended answer is insufficient in every respect and contains only conclusions of law and thereby becomes an admission of the facts as set up in defendant’s second amended answer. Our Supreme Court has especially held such answers bad, and that the defendant is in no case compelled to file a motion to make such answers more definite and certain or sufficient. Long v. Long, 79 Mo. 644; Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360; Young v. Schofield-, 132 Mo. 650; Bowles v. Bennington, 136 Mo. 522; Dezell…
1Opinion of the Court
BROADDÚS, P. J.
The plaintiff’s suit is to recover judgment on two special taxbills and to enforce a lien on certain real estate belonging to the defendant. The petition is in the usual form in such cases. The plaintiff is the assignee of the Bandera Flag Stone Company, the party that did the work. The work consisted in constructing natural stone sidewalks on both sides of Seventeenth street from the curb line on the west side of Broadway to the curb line on the east side of Pennsylvania avenue. The defendant’s lots abutted on Seventeenth street.
The answer contains a general denial and certain…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Russell v. PlaceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Jourolmon v. MassengillTennessee Supreme Court · 1887
- Western M. & M. Co. v. Virginia Cannel Coal Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- State ex rel. National Subway Co. v. St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Donnell v. WrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Scanlon v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Johnson v. United Railways Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- B. Roth Tool Co. v. Champ Spring Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Ogden v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908