Schluter v. Wiedenbrocker

Decision Date23 November 1886
Citation23 Mo.App. 440
PartiesW. SCHLUTER ET AL., Respondents, v. A. WIEDENBROCKER ET AL.; CHRIST. DORN, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, DANIEL DILLON, Judge.

Affirmed.

HENRY BOEMLER, for the appellant.

JOHN F. WIELANDY, for the respondents.

THOMPSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought before a justice of the peace to enforce the lien of a sub-contractor upon the leasehold interest of the defendant and appellant, Dorn, in certain described premises, and to recover a general judgment against the defendant, Wiedenbrocker, as principal contractor. The case was appealed to the circuit court, where, upon a trial before the court sitting as a jury, a general judgment was rendered against the contractor, and a special judgment against the leasehold interest of the owner, in conformity with the prayer of the petition. Dorn, the owner, has alone appealed.

I. The first objection of the appellant that the petition, upon which the action was commenced before the justice, does not state the necessary jurisdictional facts, within the rule laid down by this court in Ewing v. Donnelly (20 Mo. App. 6), is clearly not tenable. The petition sets forth with fullness of statement, though with some grammatical inaccuracy, all the facts required by the statute, to-wit: The doing of the work upon the premises (describing them) under a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, Wiedenbrocker; the ownership of the premises by the defendant, Dorn; a contract, embracing the work, between Dorn and Wiedenbrocker; the filing by the plaintiffs in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, within four months of the doing of the work, of a just and true account thereof; an exhibition of this account in the body of their petition; and the allegation of a notification by them, ten days prior to the filing of such account, of their intention to bring an action to enforce their mechanic's lien against the premises, before the justice before whom this suit was brought. The filing of this petition and the service of the summons gave the justice jurisdiction to proceed to render some kind of a judgment; and any final judgment which he may have rendered, though void because of the plaintiff's failure to prove, as he had alleged, the necessary jurisdictional facts, and hence subject to collateral attack if not appealed from, under the rule in Ewing v. Donnelly ( supra), would be sufficient to support...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • LaPp v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 23, 1886

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT