Cobb Builders, Inc. v. Naidorf, 25675
| Decision Date | 04 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 25675,25675 |
| Citation | 472 S.W.2d 33 |
| Parties | COBB BUILDERS, INC., a Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sidney NAIDORF, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Donald J. Lock, Wilcox & Houts, St. Joseph, for plaintiff-appellant.
Philip Eveloff, Muster & Eveloff, St. Joseph, for defendant-respondent.
DIXON, Commissioner.
Plaintiff-appellant seeks reversal of the order of the Circuit Court dismissing plaintiff's petition upon the basis of res adjudicata. Appellant contends that there is no evidentiary support for the Circuit Court's order sustaining the motion to dismiss.
The transcript contains a petition filed June 23, 1970 which alleges a cause of action in quantum meruit for services rendered by the plaintiff corporation. On October 19, 1970, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss in which the defendant alleged that the same cause of action was tried by the Magistrate Court of Margaret Young resulting in a final judgment. An answer was also filed, but it is not material to the issues here presented. On October 26, 1970, the court entered an order as follows:
Now at this day comes the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause by its attorney, Donald Lock, of the law firm of Sprague, Wilcox and Houts, and comes the defendant by his attorney, Philip Eveloff, and now here defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition herein is taken up and considered by the Court, argument of counsel is heard thereon, evidence introduced, and said motion is by the Court sustained on the grounds of res judicata.
Now here the above entitled cause is by the Court dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the plaintiff take nothing by this suit and that this defendant go hence without day and have and recover of and from the plaintiff his costs in this behalf expended and that execution by had accordingly.
There is nothing else in the transcript. The transcript was approved on the 2nd day of February, 1971 by attorneys for both of the parties.
Appellant contends that the motion to dismiss raising the matter of res adjudicata does not prove itself and that the movant had the burden of proving the allegations contended in the motion. There is no question but what appellant's position is correct in this regard, that proof is required to support the defense of res adjudicata and that the burden rests upon the party filing the motion. Randall v. St. Albans Farms, Inc., Mo., 345 S.W.2d 220, 223. Fine v. Waldman Mercantile Company, Mo.App., 412 S.W.2d 549, 551. There is no such evidentiary support for the order dismissing plaintiff's petition.
Nor may we apply a presumption of right action on the part of the trial court to sustain an order since it is being directly attacked in this action. McDaniel v. Lovelace, Mo.App., 392 S.W.2d 422,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Light v. Lang, s. 36160
...a dismissal. Rule 55.27; Johnson v. Great Heritage Life Insurance Co., 490 S.W.2d 686, 689(5) (Mo.App.1973); Cobb Builders, Inc. v. Naidorf, 472 S.W.2d 33, 34(1) (Mo.App.1971); Fine v. Waldman Mercantile Co., 412 S.W.2d 549, 551(1) (Mo.App.1967). Under these authorities, it is clear that th......
-
Swallows v. Holden
...there is no presumption that the trial court acted properly. Taylor v. Coe, 675 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Mo.App.1984); Cobb Builders, Inc. v. Naidorf, 472 S.W.2d 33, 34 (Mo.App.1971); McDaniel v. Lovelace, supra, 392 S.W.2d at 428. A judgment must be based on evidence and not speculation. State v. ......
-
Taylor v. Coe
...allegations. Staab v. Thoreson, 579 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.App.1979); Williams v. Williams, 497 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.App.1973); Cobb Builders, Inc. v. Naidorf, 472 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1971). "Once a factual question of the court's jurisdiction is raised, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that th......
-
Charles Chalmers MacLean, III, Architect, Ltd. v. United Southwest Service Agency, Inc.
...allegations. Staab v. Thoreson, 579 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.App.1979); Williams v. Williams, 497 S.W.2d 415 (Mo.App.1973); Cobb Builders, Inc. v. Naidorf, 472 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App.1971). 'Once a factual question of the court's jurisdiction is raised, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that th......