Glassey v. Sligo Furnace Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
.Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — No». L. B. Wood-side, Judge. There was no demand npon defendant for the return of said cattle. McRoberts represented the defendant in executing said contract and was superintendent of said company, yet no demand was made on him. (a) Under, the form of conversion sued on (not considering the contract) to-wit: “by failure to deliver to owner on demand,” a demand is imperative.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — No». L. B. Wood-side, Judge. There was no demand npon defendant for the return of said cattle. McRoberts represented the defendant in executing said contract and was superintendent of said company, yet no demand was made on him. (a) Under, the form of conversion sued on (not considering the contract) to-wit: “by failure to deliver to owner on demand,” a demand is imperative. Nanson v. Jacobs, 98 Mo. 340, 6 S. W. 246. Sec. 1575, R. S. 1899, does not apply to conversion. Dixon v. McDonald, 92 Mo>. App. 480; Bollman v. Peake, 96 M’o. App. 257, 69 S. W. 1058.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts).
1. Defendant demurred to plaintiff’s petition. The court overruled the demurrer. Defendant did not stand on its demurrer but answered. One of the assignments of error is, that the court should have sustained the demurrer. That an answer over waives a demurrer is too well settled to require the citation of authorities.
2. Defendant insists that the evidence fails to show a demand was made on it for the missing steers. The evidence is that plaintiff was notified by Cooksey to come to Sligo for his cattle, and in response to the notice be sent his agent to receive them,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kansas City v. Marsh Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Gayle v. Missouri Car & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- State v. GoddardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Caris v. Nimmons & BennettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Wibracht v. AnnanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901