Willis Coal & Mining Co. v. Furstenfeld
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) It was a prejudicial error to deny the motion of Sophia Furstenfeld to he made a party defendant to this action. She claimed an interest in the controversy and was therefore a necessary party thereto. E. S. 1899, sec. 518; 1 Ann.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) It was a prejudicial error to deny the motion of Sophia Furstenfeld to he made a party defendant to this action. She claimed an interest in the controversy and was therefore a necessary party thereto. E. S. 1899, sec. 518; 1 Ann. Statutes, 581. (2) Without a special agreement, which is nowhere alleged or proved in this action, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in this action against the retiring partner, the appellant herein, upon a debt of the old firm. Spaunhorst y. Link, 46 Mo. 199; Friedman y. Punch, 93…
1Opinion of the CourtGray, J.
This is an action against defendants, sued as a co-partnership, for coal sold and delivered at the special instance and request of defendants. The petition, after alleging that the plaintiff is a business corporation organized under the laws of Missouri, alleges that the defendants named were co-partners and dealt in coal and fuel and other merchandise under the firm name and style of O. Furstenfeld & Sons; that during the years of 1901 to 1906, the plaintiff sold to the defendants coal, and that the defendants are indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $617.23 therefor.
It stands admitted…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Spaunhorst v. LinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Friedman v. M. Engel & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902