Steinbruegge v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. James E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The Statute of Limitations does not run against a married woman. Section 1894, R. S. 1909; Smith v. Ins. Co., 64 Mo. 330; Throckmorton v. Pence, 121 Mo. 50; Lindell Real Estate Co. v. Lindell, 142 Mo. 61; Linville v. Greer, 165 Mo. 380; Bucher v. Hahl, 199 Mo. 320; Elliott v. Machine Co., 236 Mo. 546; State v. Macy, 72 Mo.' App. 427; Rosenberger v. Mallerson, 92 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Son. James E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The Statute of Limitations does not run against a married woman. Section 1894, R. S. 1909; Smith v. Ins. Co., 64 Mo. 330; Throckmorton v. Pence, 121 Mo. 50; Lindell Real Estate Co. v. Lindell, 142 Mo. 61; Linville v. Greer, 165 Mo. 380; Bucher v. Hahl, 199 Mo. 320; Elliott v. Machine Co., 236 Mo. 546; State v. Macy, 72 Mo.' App. 427; Rosenberger v. Mallerson, 92 Mo. App. 368; Linck v. Vorbauer, 104 Mo. App. 368. It was permissible to prove that plaintiff was a married woman under the allegation of full performance.…
1Opinion
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
ALLEN, J.
Respondent insists that in our opinion filed herein we inadvertently overlooked the fact “that the petition before the court for consideration in this case is not a statement filed in the justice court *206but an amended petition filed in tbe circuit court after appeal from the justice court.”
It is true that tbe statement or petition which we had under consideration was not the original statement filed before tbe justice of tbe peace, but was an “amended petition” filed by plaintiff after tbe case reached tbe circuit court. We did not overlook this, but deemed it…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- C. G. Conn Co. v. OrrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Wendleton v. KingeryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904