Langford v. Sanger
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The amended petition was as follows : “Plaintiffs state that they as partners, doing business under the name and style of Langford, Stephenson & Co., entered into a contract or articles of agreement,.in writing, with the above named defendants, doing business under the name and style of Sanger, Camp & Co., on the sixth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, for the framing and erection of fifteen bridges upon the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. The amended petition was as follows : “Plaintiffs state that they as partners, doing business under the name and style of Langford, Stephenson & Co., entered into a contract or articles of agreement,.in writing, with the above named defendants, doing business under the name and style of Sanger, Camp & Co., on the sixth day of February, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, for the framing and erection of fifteen bridges upon the Illinois division of the Ohio and Mississippi railroad, as follows: that is. to say, on section 84, Nicholson creek, one…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The question arising in this case grows wholly out of the-defectiveness of the petition. It is inaccurate to speak of the several parts in which the petition is divided as separate and independent counts; the relief prayed for in each and every one of them flows as damages out of the contract attempted to be pleaded in what is designated as the first count. The counts amount to nothing more than the evidence which the pleader has illogically inserted in the petition, and by which he intended to support his action, and which might be wholly disregarded and treated as surplasage had the written…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- State ex rel. McKown v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Adams v. HarperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Staed v. MahonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897