Peery v. Harper

Citation42 Mo. 131
PartiesTHOMAS W. PEERY, Respondent, v. P. W. HARPER et al., Appellants.
Decision Date31 January 1868
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Polk Circuit Court

Plaintiff commenced suit by attachment against Harper, and by summons against Smith. The ground of attachment against Harper was, that he was a non-resident of this State. Harper appeared, filed his plea in abatement, and the issue was found for him. Smith did not appear. Harper then put in his answer, alleging that neither plaintiff nor defendants were residents of Polk county, etc.McAfee & Phelps, for appellant.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only point saved by the record is the action of the court in striking out defendants' answer. The suit was brought by the plaintiff in Polk county; and one of the defendants, Smith, resided in Henry county, and the other defendant, Harper, resided in Saline county.

Harper appeared and filed his answer, stating that neither the plaintiff nor defendants resided in Polk county, and prayed that the case be dismissed. This answer was stricken out, on motion of plaintiff's attorney, because it was not responsive to the petition, and because it was irrelevant, redundant, and frivolous. No further answer being made, judgment was rendered against the defendants.

I cannot perceive on what grounds the ruling of the court was predicated. If the answer was true, it divested the court of all jurisdiction. Under the law governing the case, when the plea in abatement was found for the defendant, the whole proceedings should have abated; but even on the theory on which the case was tried, that it was regulated and controlled by the forty-second section of the attachment act of the General Statutes, the judgment was erroneous, for that section declares that, when issue joined on plea in abatement is found in favor of defendant, the suit shall not abate, but shall be proceeded upon to final judgment, as though commenced originally by summons alone. Now, the practice act provides that, in suits instituted by summons, they shall be brought, when the parties all reside in the State, either in the county within which the defendant resides, or in the county within which the plaintiff resides and the defendant may be found. One of the parties must reside in the county where suit is brought in order to confer jurisdiction. If the matter alleged in the answer was true, it constituted a complete bar to all further proceedings in the case.

The judgment must, therefore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Aloe v. Mutual Reserve Life Association
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 7 Febrero 1899
  • Hadley v. Bernero
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Diciembre 1903
    ...reviewed by appellate tribunals when the evidence essential to a review is in the record. Hembree v. Campbell, 8 Mo. 572; Peery v. Harper, 42 Mo. 131; Brackett v. Brackett, 61 Mo. 221; Smith v. Simpson, 80 Mo. 634; Roberts v. State Ins. Co., 26 Mo. App. 92. The decisions on which defendants......
  • Mosby v. Aetna Insurance Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 2 Diciembre 1920
  • Columbia Brewery Co. v. Forgey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 22 Junio 1909
    ...... . .          If this. were the entire case, the ruling would have been proper,. indeed, as has been decided in numerous cases. [Peery v. Harper, 42 Mo. 131; Thompson v. Bronson, 17. Mo.App. 456; Brackett v. Brackett, 61 Mo. 221.]. There was an appearance by defendant touching the ......
  • 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