Ruebsam v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant to make the amended petition more definite and certain.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the motion of the defendant to make the amended petition more definite and certain. Lappington v. Jeffries, 15 Mo. 574; Atteberry v. Powell, 29 Mo. 429. (2) The court erred in giving the following instruction for plaintiff: “If the jury find from the evidence that plaintiff refused to pay his fare to the conductor of the Fourth street car on which he was riding, and mentioned in the evidence, when requested so to do, the conductor had the right to stop the car and eject him from the…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. In a recent case this conrt, arraying the authorities in .this State, observed that they, are not in harmony whether the infirmity of which the declaration in this cause was charged, is waived by the moving party not standing on his motion and pleading over, but that it appeared the last utterances of the Supreme Court on the subject justified the position assumed by defendant. Sommers v. St. Louis Transit Co., 108 Mo. App. 319, 83 S. W. 278. The sufficiency of a pleading, however, is to be tested by the code provisions and the first pleading of a plaintiff is…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sidway v. Missouri Land & Live Stock Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Spurlock v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Sommers v. St. Louis Transit Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Watkins v. DonnellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Atteberry v. PowellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Campbell v. State Highway CommissionMissouri Court of Appeals · 1940