Baker v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 15 June 1905
• Citation: Baker v. City of St. Louis, 88 S.W. 74, 189 Mo. 375 (Mo. 1905)
• Parties: BAKER v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

88 S.W. 74

189 Mo. 375

BAKER v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 15, 1905.

APPEAL—FINAL JUDGMENTS.

Defendant R. answered by a general denial, and the other defendants entered a demurrer, on which judgment was entered in their favor. Plaintiff then dismissed as to R., and the other defendants objected, and moved to set aside the dismissal. Held, that, while this motion was pending, the judgment as entered was not final as to all the parties, and an appeal therefrom by plaintiff was premature.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jesse A. McDonald, Judge.

Action by Minnie A. Baker against the city of St. Louis and others. From a judgment on a demurrer entered by part of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Jamison & Thomas, for appellant. Chas. W. Bates and Wm. F. Woerner, for respondents.

BRACE, P. J.

This is an action by Minnie A. Baker, plaintiff, against the city of St. Louis and the following officials of said city, viz.: Amand Ravold, bacteriologist; William C. Tiechman, city chemist; Max C. Starkloff, health commissioner; and Rolla C. Wells, Max C. Starkloff, Joseph L. Hornsby, Andrew F. Blong, Albert N. Merrill, and Henry N. Chapman, members of the board of health of said city—defendants. The petition is in five counts. The first and second each ask $5,000 damages for the death of two of plaintiff's minor children, and the other three counts each ask $2,000 damages on account of sickness of three of plaintiff's children, all caused, it is alleged, by the negligence of defendants in furnishing plaintiff with improperly prepared and noxious diphtheria antitoxin. The answer of defendant Ravold to the petition was a general denial. The other defendants demurred thereto, their demurrer was sustained, and judgment thereon rendered in their favor. Thereupon plaintiff dismissed as to Ravold, and the defendants other than Ravold filed the following motion: "Now come all the defendants in the above-entitled cause (except Amand Ravold), and particularly the city of St. Louis, and object to and except to the action of the court in permitting the plaintiff to dismiss the cause as to Amand Ravold, and move the court to set aside said dismissal, for the following reason, to wit: It appears from plaintiff's petition that the alleged cause of action sued for arises from the wrongful and unauthorized acts and carelessness and negligence of said Ravold, if there be any liability at all on the part of any...