Pope v. Salsman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Camden Circuit Court, The amended petition was as follows: “ The plaintiff in the above cause, by leave of the court first had and obtained, by way of amendment to his original petition, states, that heretofore, to wit: aboiit the year 1854, being then the owner of the south-east quarter of the south-east quarter of section No. 26, in township No. 39, of range No. 15, and one Scott Strong being the owner of the north-east quarter of the south-east quarter of the…
Read the full summary
Error to Camden Circuit Court, The amended petition was as follows: “ The plaintiff in the above cause, by leave of the court first had and obtained, by way of amendment to his original petition, states, that heretofore, to wit: aboiit the year 1854, being then the owner of the south-east quarter of the south-east quarter of section No. 26, in township No. 39, of range No. 15, and one Scott Strong being the owner of the north-east quarter of the south-east quarter of the above described section, township and range, they, the said Salsman and Strong, erected a mill and mill dam on the above…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
In this case the respondent recovered judgment for three hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-nine cents, whereas he demanded in his petition only one hundred dollars. *366This was error apparent on the record, for which the judgment must be reversed. Furthermore, we think the amended petition on which the case was tried is clearly bad, in that it contains the statement of no cause of action; and not for the reason argued by the plaintiff in error, that the cause of action stated in it is a different one from that stated in the original petition. If the purpose of the proceeding be the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jones v. ShawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Vogelsong v. St. Louis Wood Fibre Plaster Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Haynes v. ShortSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Payne v. KingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Moore v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906