Morgan v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Son. Wm. N. Evans, Judge. That one substantive and complete cause of action, arising out of the same tort, cannot be divided into several suits, is too well settled to require citation of authorities, but see: Savings Bank v. Tracey, 141 Mo. 252, 42 S. W. 946; Trask v. Railroad, 2 Allen 331; Brannenburg v. Rid., 13 Ind. 103, 74 Am. Dec. 250; Steiglider v. Red., 38 M'o. App. 511; Trans. Oo. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 355; Laine v. Francis, 15 M’o.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Son. Wm. N. Evans, Judge. That one substantive and complete cause of action, arising out of the same tort, cannot be divided into several suits, is too well settled to require citation of authorities, but see: Savings Bank v. Tracey, 141 Mo. 252, 42 S. W. 946; Trask v. Railroad, 2 Allen 331; Brannenburg v. Rid., 13 Ind. 103, 74 Am. Dec. 250; Steiglider v. Red., 38 M'o. App. 511; Trans. Oo. v. Traube, 59 Mo. 355; Laine v. Francis, 15 M’o. App. 107; Funk v. Funk, 35 Mo. App. 251; Bendernagle v. Cocks, 19JWend. (N. Y.) 207; Hite v. Long, 6 Rand, 457; 18 Am.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — The sole question presented by the record and argued by counsel in their briefs is, whether or not the plaintiff could split his demand and successfully prosecute two suits for damages caused by one and the same wrong. The rule-against splitting a cause of action is aptly expressed by the Supreme Court in Savings Bank v. Tracey, 141 Mo. 1. c. 258, 42 S. W. 946; as follows: “No rule of law is better settled than that a single cause of action can not be split in order that separate suits may be brought for the various parts of what constitute but one demand and the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Mulholland v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Wheeler Savings Bank v. TraceySupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Moran v. PlankintonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Howell v. GoodrichIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Cunningham v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vineseck v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1917