Bennett v. Lohman
Decision Date | 19 December 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 22436.,22436. |
Parties | BENNETT, Treasurer, v. LOHMAN. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cole County; J. G. Slate, Judge.
Action by Marshall Bennett, as Treasurer of Benton County, Ark., against L. C. Lohman. Judgment for the defendant on plaintiff's refusal to plead further after demurrer to his petition was sustained, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Rice & Rice, of Bentonville, Ark., and Irwin & Haley, of Jefferson City, for appellant.
Ira H. Lohman and A. T. Dumm, both of Jefferson City, for respondent.
The only case we have pending here, according to the short transcript on file, is the case of "Marshall Bennett, as Treasurer of Benton County, Ark., v. L. C. Lohman." We note this because there are additional abstracts of record with reference to another case against L. C. Lohman, filed in the circuit court prior to the one indicated by the short transcript of record filed by appellants in this case. We can only deal with the record before us. This record shows that the circuit court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff's petition, and plaintiff, refusing to further plead, judgment was entered for the defendant as against the plaintiff and his sureties. The record in the case before us consists of the petition, the demurrer, and the judgment thereon, as such judgment is above indicated. The relevancy of the record in a previous case against Lohman can be noted if it becomes important. It can only became important on the statute of limitations. The first petition filed in February, 1915, had as plaintiffs, "Benton County, Ark., and N. S. Henry, Treasurer of Benton County, Ark." July 7, 1919, was filed the present petition. By this we mean the petition upon which the judgment appealed from was rendered. It is entitled "Marshall Bennett, as Treasurer of Benton County, Ark., Plaintiff, v. L. C. Lohman, Defendant." The petition charges:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Span v. Coal & Mining Co.
...face a right of recovery against appellant. McGannon v. Ins. Co., 171 Mo. 143; State ex rel. Conant v. Trimble, 311 Mo. 143; Bennett v. Lohman, 292 Mo. 477. (a) The respondent's petition stated a cause of action. Bennett v. Lohman. 292 Mo. 477: 31 Cyc. 115: Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 212; ......
-
Hall Motor Freight v. Montgomery
... ... respondents; said instructions contained as to the ... respondents the wrong degree of care. Bennett v ... Lohman, 238 S.W. 792, 292 Mo. 477; Woolridge v ... Bryan, 270 S.W. 658, 307 Mo. 234; Columbia Taxicab ... Co. v. Roemmich, 208 S.W. 859; ... ...
-
Odom v. Langston
... ... Exchg. Bank, 333 Mo. 437, 447, 62 S.W.2d 803, 806(1); State ... ex rel. Gentry v. Bray, 323 Mo. 562, 575, 20 S.W.2d 60, ... 62(5); Bennett v. Lohman, 292 Mo. 477, 493(II), 238 S.W. 792, ... 796(2, 3) ... [ 4 ] Bulkley v. Big Muddy Iron Co., 77 Mo. 105, ... 107; Y. M. C. A. of K. C ... ...
-
Span v. Jackson, Walker Coal & Mining Co.
...face a right of recovery against appellant. McGannon v. Ins. Co., 171 Mo. 143; State ex rel. Conant v. Trimble, 311 Mo. 143; Bennett v. Lohman, 292 Mo. 477. (a) The respondent's petition stated a cause of action. Bennett v. Lohman, 292 Mo. 477; 31 Cyc. 115; Ansell v. Boston, 254 Mass. 212; ......