Cruchon v. Brown
| Decision Date | 31 March 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 38 |
| Parties | ANN CRUCHON, ADM'X of ALEXANDER CRUCHON, dec'd, Respondent, v. LEWIS BROWN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cape Girardeau Court of Common Pleas.
Lewis Brown, pro se.
J. B. Dennis, for Respondent.
This suit originated before a justice of the peace, and is based on an account for the sum of fourteen dollars and fifty cents ($14.50) for certain articles of millinery, furnished by Mrs. Cruchon to the wife of defendant.
The plaintiff had judgment before the justice and the defendant appealed the cause to the Cape Girardeau Common Pleas, had a jury impaneled, went into trial and after the plaintiff's testimony was finished, moved the court to dismiss the cause because the action was not brought in the name of the real party in interest. This motion the court overruled; defendant excepted, and the plaintiff again recovered judgment, to reverse which this cause is brought here by appeal; and we are asked to reverse the judgment, not because the indebtedness is denied, but on the purely technical ground that the action is brought in the name of the husband to the use of the wife, when in strictness it should have been brought in the name of the husband alone.
The difficulty suggested by the defendant (who is evidently more particular than just) is easily obviated. Our Statute respecting amendments expressly authorizes the striking out of the name of a party in furtherance of justice or the correction of a mistake in any other respect after final judgment rendered, and also permits the court to which the cause is taken by writ of error or appeal, to make amendments of a like nature, which are not against “the right and justice of the matter of the suit.”
The judgment of the court below will accordingly be amended by striking out the name of the wife and letting the judgment stand affirmed in the name of the husband alone. And upon the defendant will be case the burden of all the costs which he has needlessly incurred in this petty litigation.
The other Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Elberta Peach & Land Company v. Chicago Bonding & Surety Company
... ... It is the hyperbole of ... euphemism. R. S. 1909, sec. 7068; Cascarella v. Life Ins ... Co., 175 Mo.App. 130; Brown v. Ry. Assurance ... Co., 45 Mo. 221; Williams v. Ins. Co., 189 Mo ... 70; Keller v. Ins. Co., 198 Mo. 440; Fay v. Ins ... Co., 268 Mo ... 392; Mechanics Bank to use. v. Gilpin, ... 105 Mo. 17; Hunter v. Kansas City Sav. Bank 158 Mo ... 262; Weil v. Simmons, 66 Mo. 617; Cruchon v. Brown, ... 57 Mo. 38 ... Holland, ... Rutledge & Lashly for defendant ... (1) ... Where a trustee has a ... ...
-
In re Main's Estate
... ... S. 1939; ... [152 S.W.2d 702] ... Dixon v. Hunter, 204 Mo. 382, 102 S.W. 970; Bank ... of Oak Ridge v. Duncan, 40 S.W.2d 656; Cruchon v ... Brown, 57 Mo. 38; Purdy v. Gault, 19 Mo.App ... However, ... it is insisted by the appellant that the court erred in ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bell v. United States Fidelity And Guaranty Co.
...Statutes 1889, and such amendments as this have often been made by this court under them. [Mueller v. Kaessmann, 84 Mo. 318; Cruchon v. Brown, 57 Mo. 38; Weil Simmons, 66 Mo. 617; McClanahan v. West, 100 Mo. 309, 13 S.W. 674; Hunt v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 607.] The appellant in his argument to t......
-
Keen v. Schnedler
...error, if true. Philips v. Evans, 64 Mo. 22; R. S., 1879, secs. 3570, 3582, 3583, 3375, 3776; Hunt v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 607; Cruchon v. Brown, 57 Mo. 38, 39; Lemmon Hartsook, 80 Mo. 14, 21; Fine v. St. Louis Public Schools, 39 Mo. 68. (11) There is nothing in the objection to the change of v......