Fadley v. Smith

Citation23 Mo.App. 87
PartiesJACOB FADLEY ET AL., Respondents, v. WILLIAM SMITH, Appellant.
Decision Date30 June 1886
CourtKansas Court of Appeals

APPEAL from Harrison Circuit Court, HON. CHAS H. S. GOODMAN, Judge,

Affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

C. S WINSLOW, for the appellant.

I. The demurrer was not too late. Actions ex contractu and ex delicto could not be united, under the code, in the same petition; and a motion at the close of plaintiff's evidence to compel him to elect was not too late. Southworth Co. v. Lamb, 82 Mo. 242; sect 3572, Rev. Stat.

II. The contract admitted in evidence was at variance with the allegations in the petition and should have been excluded. Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 287; Harris v Railroad, 37 Mo. 308.

III. The instructions given for plaintiff assumed the existence of facts controverted by the pleadings and by plaintiff's own evidence and were, therefore, erroneous. They were also calculated to mislead the jury. Wil kerson v. Thompson, 82 Mo. 317; Donahoe v. Railroad, 83 Mo. 560.

IV. The court erred in refusing instructions asked for defendant, as they stated the law applicable to the case correctly. The instructions, on the whole case, were inconsistent and contradictory; and for this reason the judgment should be reversed. Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472; State v. Nauert, 2 Mo.App. 295.

V. Defendant's motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained. A misjoinder of causes of action is fatal; and where such defect is apparent on the face of the record, the appellate court will take notice of it on appeal or writ of error, whether exceptions were saved or not. Gray v. Payne, 43 Mo. 203; Peyton v. Rose, 43 Mo. 139; Southworth Co. v. Lamb, 82 Mo. 242; Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 161.

HEASTON & BUTLER, and WANAMAKER & BARLOW, for the respondents.

I. The court properly struck defendant's demurrer from the files, as it was filed out of time and without leave of the court, after the pleadings were made up and the case was ready for trial. By standing upon his answer, and going to trial thereon, defendant waived his demurrer. State to use, etc., v. Sappington, 68 Mo. 454; Ware v. Johnson, 55 Mo. 500; Gale v. Foss, 47 Mo. 276; Hall v. Johnson, 57 Mo. 521. If matters were improperly united in the petition defendant's remedy would have been by motion to compel plaintiffs to elect and strike out the balance. O'Conner v. Kock, 56 Mo. 253; Otis v. Bk., 35 Mo. 128; Mulholland v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Hotel Co. v. Sigemont, 53 Mo. 176.

II. The court did not err in admitting in evidence the written contract on which the suit was founded. It was filed with the petition and did not vary from it, and the answer admitted its execution. There was no specific objection made as to its admissibility. Kautz v. Tempel, 48 Mo. 71; Buckley v. Knapp, 48 Mo. 152; Grimm v. Gamache, 25 Mo. 41; Holmes v. Braidwood, 82 Mo. 610; Allen v. Mansfield, 82 Mo. 688; Bowie v. Kansas City, 51 Mo. 454; State to use, etc., v. Webster, 53 Mo. 135.

III. The instruction given for plaintiff did not assume facts, but was hypothecated upon the evidence. The evidence upon which it was based is not preserved in the bill of exceptions. Broadwell v. Bouton, 39 Mo. 401; Kansas City v. Kelley, 39 Mo. 415.

IV. The instructions refused to defendant were not founded on the evidence. Payment of part of purchase price is no legal waiver of breach of warranty. 2 Suth. on Dam. 128, 415, 422; Compton v. Parsons, 76 Mo. 455; Bronson v. Turner, 77 Mo. 492; Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384.

V. The court properly overruled defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. There are not two causes of action set out in the petition. Even if petition was defective, if the verdict could not have been given without proof of omitted matter, the defect will be cured. Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 287; Bowie v. Kansas City, 51 Mo. 454.

C. S. WINSLOW, in reply.

I. The instruction for plaintiffs failed to limit the amount plaintiffs were entitled to recover upon the pleadings, and was erroneous. Crews v. Lackland, 67 Mo. 619.

II. An instruction on the whole case, must not exclude the points raised by the evidence of the opposite side. Fitzgerald v. Hayward, 50 Mo. 516; Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472.

III. The defects in the petition were not cured by verdict. The defect was of substance and not of form. Ivory v. Carlin, 30 Mo. 142.

ELLISON J.

Defendant sold plaintiffs a portable saw mill and gave a written guaranty in the bill of sale, whereby he guaranteed the mill to saw five thousand feet of lumber per day, if properly managed by competent men. The guaranty was to continue for ten days from its date, only, and contained a stipulation that in case the mill failed to perform as agreed, plaintiffs should notify defendant " within ten days from this date (date of guaranty) of said failure."

" Pending the trial of said cause" defendant, without leave, filed a demurrer to the petition and asked to withdraw his answer. The court refused leave to withdraw and struck the demurrer from the files.

The trial was then proceeded with. Plaintiffs offered the written guaranty in evidence " to the introduction of which defendant at the moment excepted." " Defendant also objected to the introduction of any evidence under the petition." The objection was overruled, to which action of the court " defendant at the moment excepted." Plaintiffs gave evidence tending to support their petition, and defendant tending to support his answer. One instruction asked by plaintiffs was given, and of the six asked by defendant, three were given and three refused. The trial resulted in plaintiffs' favor and defendant appeals, contending here, that his demurrer should not have been stricken from the files; that his objections to testimony should have been sustained, and that plaintiffs' instruction should not have been given, and his should not have been refused.

The demurrer being filed during the trial, while the trial was pending, was properly stricken out. Allowing a pleading to be filed out of time is much in the dis cretion of the trial court, and certainly, we cannot say that discretion was abused to defendant's injury, by striking from the files a demurrer, which had been waived by the answer, and which had been filed without leave, while the trial was on.

The objection to the introduction of the guaranty was properly overruled, no reason being assigned therefor. This has been frequently held in this, and in the supreme court. So too, with regard to the objection to any evidence under the petition. There is not the remotest suggestion made as to why evidence should not be received under the petition.

The instruction for plaintiff was properly given, and, in connection with those granted the defence, fully covered the issues in the case.

Instruction number four, refused for defendant, asserted the proposition that if plaintiffs retained the property and paid the purchase price they could not recover. I do not understand such to be the law in this sort of case. " Payment of the priceis no legal waiver of the warranty." 2 Suth. Dam. 128. If we should concede, as is claimed by defendant, that there is a misjoinder in plaintiffs' petition, the point would avail him nothing. Advantage of such improper pleading cannot be taken advantage of by motion in arrest. The doctrine announced in the quotation and citation of defendant has been exploded in this state. Sweet v. Maupin, 65 Mo. 63-72; House v. Lowell, 45 Mo. 381; Pickering v. The M. V. N. T. Co., 47 Mo. 457.

The law is that when causes of action, which may be properly joined in one petition, are placed in one count, instead of being separately stated in separate counts, the remedy is by motion to require plaintiff to elect one and to strike out the remaining causes thus improperly joined in one count. Otis v. Mechanics' Bank, 35 Mo. 128; Mooney v. Kennet, 19 Mo. 551; Christal v. Craig, 80 Mo. 367.

Where there are causes of action stated in the petition, either in one count or separate counts, which cannot be united in the same petition, but require separate suits, the remedy is by demurrer. And it is such incongruous uniting of actions to which the fifth subdivision of section 3515, Revised Statutes, relating to demurrers refers. Otis v. Mechanics' Bank, supra.

It has undoubtedly been the rule in this state, that where there is a misjoinder and the remedy be either demurrer or motion to elect, it should be filed and determined before trial. " The opportuuity is offered, by demurrer and motion, to settle, before trial, all question of pleadings, and if the opportunity is not embraced, defects should be held to have been waived, and the verdict should not be disturbed." House v. Lowell, supra.

Conceding it to be true, as alleged in this case, that two causes of action are united in one count, and the damages are charged but once, and are predicated upon both causes of action, the pleading is not good, " but should be corrected by motion, before pleading over, to require the plaintiff to elect upon which cause to proceed, and that the other be stricken out." Stevenson v. Judy, 49 Mo. 227. And if no such motion is made it will be deemed waived. Christal v. Craig, supra.

The demurrer in this case, being for the improper joining, in the same count, of causes of action which could not be united in the same petition, was the proper remedy, if taken in time, but, being filed after answer and after the beginning of the trial, was waived.

Our attention has been called to the case of The Southworth Co. v. Lamb (82 Mo. 242), where two causes of action were united in the same petition, which from their nature, required separate suits, and where a motion was made at the close of plaintif...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • The State ex rel. McEntee v. Bright
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 21 d2 Dezembro d2 1909
    ......v. Strobie, 194 Mo. 45;. State ex rel. v. Railroad, 100 Mo. 59. See also. Maston v. Sloan, 98 Mo. 252; State ex rel. v. Smith, 104 Mo. 419; State v. Withrow, 108 Mo. 1. (4) Section 1, of article 6, of the Constitution of. Missouri, provides that the judicial power of ... . .          The. same question is likewise discussed and along the same lines. by Philips, P. J., in Fadley v. Smith, 23 Mo.App. 87. . .          In our. judgment the filing of the latter motion was tantamount in. law to a withdrawal of ......
  • Badger Lumber Co. v. Stepp
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 26 d2 Junho d2 1900
  • Welsh v. Stewart
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 5 d2 Junho d2 1888
    ...18 Mo.App. 567; Union Bank v. Dillon, 75 Mo. 380. The true rule seems to be that laid down by the Kansas City Court of Appeals, in Fadley v. Smith, supra, that the separate causes of action, which have been improperly blended in one count in the petition, are such as may be joined in the sa......
  • Robinson v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 23 d2 Junho d2 1908
    ...... in the same count, so long as the violated duties produced. the one injury, as in this case. Fadley v. Smith, 23. Mo.App. 87; White v. Railroad, 202 Mo. 539; Jordan. v. Transit Co., 202 Mo. 418. . .          . OPINION . [112 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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