Hasler v. Ozark Land & Lumber Company

Citation74 S.W. 465,101 Mo.App. 136
PartiesC. R. HASLER, Respondent, v. OZARK LAND & LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant
Decision Date12 May 1903
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Appeal from Shannon Circuit Court.--Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Affirmed.

James Orchard and James H. Dorris for appellant.

(1) Our first contention is that the court erred in not striking out plaintiff's amended statement, for the reason that the last count was a new cause of action and different from the one tried in the justice court, which is not tolerated by our statute or the courts. R. S. 1899, sec. 4077; Boughton v Railway, 25 Mo.App. 10. (2) When an attempt is made to hold a third party for a debt, a promise to pay the credit must be given solely to him and no one else. Gill v Reed, 55 Mo.App. 246; Price v. Railroad, 40 Mo.App. 189; Hoberle v. O'Day, 61 Mo.App. 390; Penninger v. Reiley, 44 Mo.App. 255.

No brief for respondent.

REYBURN J. Bland, P. J., and Goode, J., concur.

OPINION

REYBURN, J.

--This action was begun before a justice of the peace in Shannon county to recover a balance of $ 135 for professional services rendered in medical attendance upon and treatment of Jacob and Robert Hensperker, employees of defendant, during their affliction with smallpox. The complaint filed with the magistrate alleged that the services were performed at the request and upon the sole credit of defendant and that it had promised to pay plaintiff therefor. After appeal to the circuit court an amended statement of the cause of action was filed comprehending, in addition to the first complaint, a count based on the same cause of action, but containing averments that defendant had created a hospital fund by contributions from its employees, including the patients named, for the purpose of employing and paying a physician for medical treatment and attendance for such employees as might require them. A motion filed by defendant to strike out the amended petition was overruled, and the cause proceeded to trial before a jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff. The first error assigned is that the amended pleading stated a new cause of action and constituted a departure from the original complaint. Applying the test of the rule lately established by the Supreme Court, it may be doubted whether the second count was more than the repetition of the primary cause of action with material averments added thereto which could have been treated as redundant and surplusage. Grigsby v. Barton County, 169 Mo. 221, 69 S.W. 296. Such was the view probably adopted by the trial court which excluded upon the objection of defendant, testimony tending in the direction of the existence of such fund for medical treatment of defendant's employees.

2. The arbitrary instruction asked by defendant for a verdict in its favor was properly refused. The testimony of plaintiff entitled him to have submitted to the jury, the issue of his employment by defendant to render the services performed, and the verdict finds abundant foundation in the evidence adduced at the trial. This case does not fall within the well-established rule sought to be invoked by appellant, that unless such relation exists between the party requesting a physician to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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