Hageman v. Moreland

Decision Date31 October 1862
Citation33 Mo. 86
PartiesBENJAMIN F. HAGEMAN, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAM MORELAND, Defendant in Error.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Error to Clark Circuit Court.

James Cowgill, for plaintiff in error.

N. F. & E. T. Givens, for defendant in error.

DRYDEN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a petition for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defendant answered, and the plaintiff moved to strike out the answer, and the motion being overruled, the plaintiff, for this cause, voluntarily suffered a nonsuit, with leave to move to set it aside. A motion to set aside was made and refused, and the plaintiff brings the case into this court by writ of error.

In the present posture of the case, we can give no opinion upon the merits. The plaintiff was under no necessity to take a nonsuit. The court has made no decision which necessarily precludes him from a recovery, for if it be admitted that the answer which the court refused to strike out presented a complete bar to the action, yet it by no means follows that the defendant could or would have sustained the same by proof on the trial of the cause. If he had not, the answer could have done the plaintiff no harm.

It is only where the action of the court, on the trial, is such as to preclude the plaintiff from a recovery that it is proper to suffer a nonsuit. In no other case will this court interfere, as has been decided again and again.

The other judges concurring, the judgment is affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Chiles v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1884
    ...bringing of suit. Beal v. Harmon, 38 Mo. 435. The plaintiff was not justified in taking a non-suit. Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 88; Hagerman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86; Kirby v. Burns, 45 Mo. 234. MARTIN, C. The plaintiff sued in ejectment in the usual form, averring entry and ouster on the 13th of......
  • International Harvester Co. v. McLaughlin
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 1932
    ... ... 597, 57 S.W. 732.] ... Corpus Juris similarly states the rule. [18 C. J., pp. 1147, ...          In the ... case of Hageman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86, ... [52 S.W.2d 228] ... the plaintiff took a nonsuit when the court overruled ... plaintiff's motion to strike out ... ...
  • Charles F. Netzow Manufacturing Company v. Baker
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • May 17, 1909
    ...other action of the court, and plaintiff was under no necessity to take a non-suit, hence the appellate court will not interfere. Hageman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86; Layton v. Riney, 33 Mo. 87. (2) The given by the court based upon the respective evidence of witness Robertson and the defendant ......
  • City of Salisbury v. Patterson
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1887
    ...to object. His appeal was dismissed at his request. It is exactly analogous to a voluntary non-suit. Poe v. Dominic, 46 Mo. 113; Heapman v. Moreland, 33 Mo. 86; Layton v. Ring, 33 Mo. 87; Schilter v. Bockwinkle, 19 Mo. 647. The court did not err in dismissing his appeal. Error cannot be ass......
  • 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