Wonderly v. Haynes
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Hugo Muench, Judge. (1) If it was an error to sustain defendant’s motion to elect, it was a harmless one. Instead of electing on which count he would stand he voluntarily dismissed the second count of his petition. (2) The court did not err in requiring plaintiff to elect. Brinkman v. Hunter, 73 Mo. 172; Enterprise Soap Works v. Sayers, 51 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Hugo Muench, Judge. (1) If it was an error to sustain defendant’s motion to elect, it was a harmless one. Instead of electing on which count he would stand he voluntarily dismissed the second count of his petition. (2) The court did not err in requiring plaintiff to elect. Brinkman v. Hunter, 73 Mo. 172; Enterprise Soap Works v. Sayers, 51 Mo. App. 315. (1) The mere fact that the record calls the non-suit “voluntary” does not make it so, and the law provides that where the action of the court is such as to preclude a recovery upon a given…
1Opinion of the CourtReynolds, P. J.
The plaintiff instituted this action against defendant on May 19, 1909, on six promissory notes due in 1893 and 1894. The petition is in two counts, the first ou a note for $2500, the second on five notes for $500 each. A judgment was demanded on each count for $2500.
In answer to the first count, after a general demal and a plea of the ten-year Statute of Limitations and of payment, there is a plea of a discharge in bankruptcy. The answer to the second count, after a general demal, is the plea of the ten-year statute and of the discharge of defendant in bankruptcy.
The reply, after a general…
2Cited by2 opinions
- International Harvester Co. v. McLaughlinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1932
- Wonderly v. HaynesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914