Fisher v. St. Louis Transit Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. John A. Blevins, Judge. (1) The requirements of the Code, section 592, that a plaintiff’s petition shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting his cause of action, does not affect the fundamental requirements of good pleading, but only the form of such pleading. Sid-way v. Stock Co., 163 Mo. 372; Ruebsam v. Railroad, 108 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Row. John A. Blevins, Judge. (1) The requirements of the Code, section 592, that a plaintiff’s petition shall contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting his cause of action, does not affect the fundamental requirements of good pleading, but only the form of such pleading. Sid-way v. Stock Co., 163 Mo. 372; Ruebsam v. Railroad, 108 Mo. App. 437. When the supposed defect is called to the attention of the trial court in an objection to the introduction of any evidence, under the petition, the rule that a pleading is to be construed…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, P. J.
This is an action by plaintiff, Floyd Fisher, a minor, who sues by his nest friend, W. H. Cocke, against the defendant St. Louis Transit Company, for twenty thousand dollars damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him by reason of the wanton and malicious conduct of the *570servants'and employees of defendant. Plaintiff’s petition, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
“Plaintiff, by his next friend, states that he is an infant under the age of fourteen years and resident of the city of St. Louis and State of Missouri; that W. H. Cocke has been duly appointed by this…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Geismann v. Missouri-Edison Electric Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Robrecht v. Marling's Adm'rWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1887
- Clark v. FairleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Southern Railway Co. v. HardinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
- Edelmann v. St. Louis Transfer Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1877
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dean v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Plater v. W. C. Mullins Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1929
- Jenkins v. Wabash Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- Midland Valley Co. v. HilliardSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Central Manufacturing Co. v. MontgomeryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.