Dallam v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 225 |
| Parties | DALLAM, Appellant, v. BOWMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A sheriff's sale under execution may be shown to be collusive or fraudulent, and that there was a secret reservation of a trust in favor of the defendant, with the consent of the purchaser.
2. Courts of original jurisdiction should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings in furtherance of justice; but the Supreme Court is averse to interfering with their exercise of discretion in such matters.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
As this case was not decided upon its merits, it is not thought necessary or useful to insert a statement of the facts, or the briefs of counsel.
It was argued by Messrs. Glover & Campbell and R. M. Field, for appellants, and Todd & Krum and E. Bates, for respondent.
It is not the purpose of the court to give any judgment on the merits of the present controversy, as we are of the opinion that they are not properly before us. Our views of this subject are now given that the plaintiff may not be delayed, if he should see proper to renew this suit. We are of opinion, that the facts proposed to be proved were admissible under a suitable state of pleadings. The petition of the plaintiff did not contain matter sufficient to admit many of the facts sought to be proved, and it is obvious that the merits of this suit cannot be properly investigated without additional averments in the plaintiff's statement of his cause of action. It is clear that a sheriff's sale, under execution, may be shown to be collusive or fraudulent, or that there was a secret reservation of a trust in favor of the defendant, with the consent of the purchaser. But there was no foundation in the pleading for such evidence. The plaintiff submitted to a non-suit on the refusal of the court below to permit him to amend his petition.
2. The matter of permitting amendments is so much in the discretion of the court who tries the cause, that this court has always expressed its aversion to interfering with the judgments of the inferior courts in relation to such matters. Courts of original jurisdiction should be liberal in the allowance of amendments in furtherance of justice. The late Code calls for the liberal exercise of this power, and furnishes ample authority in support of it.
The court is unanimous in the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston v. Randazzo Macaroni v. Company
...v. Bobst, 9 Mo. 28; Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365; Clarkson v. Morrison, 24 Mo. 134; Caldwell v. McKee, 8 Mo. 334; Dallman v. Bowman, 16 Mo. 225. (2) The contract was made with a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Missouri without a license, and is void. R. S. 1919, secs.......
-
Northwestern Stove Repair Company v. Cornwall
...with the trial court. Ensworth v. Barton, 67 Mo. 622; Clark v. Railroad, 127 Mo. 255; Mfg. Co. v. Givens, 35 Mo.App. 602; Dallam v. Bowman, 16 Mo. 225. (b) And the action of the trial court in refusing permission to amend, will not be interfered with by an appellate court, unless it clearly......
-
Herrington v. Herrington
...transaction was fraudulent with respect to Isaac Herrington's creditors; they are entitled to the land. (12 Mo. 169; 14 Mo. 160; 15 Mo. 62; 16 Mo. 225; 17 Mo. 209; 18 Mo. 174, 299; 23 Mo. 579, 588, 168; 24 Mo. 282; 25 Mo. 329; 10 Mo. 303; 5 Mo. 296.) RICHARDSON, Judge, delivered the opinion......
-
Lindsley v. Caldwell
... ... reservation of a trust in favor of the execution debtor with ... the consent of the purchaser. Dallam v. Bowman, 16 ... Mo. 225. (4) If this action had been instituted against ... Stevenson and he had set up the defense of fraud, upon proof ... of ... ...
-
Counselor, stop everything! Missouri's venue statutes receive an expansive interpretation.
...have long recognized that leave to amend pleading should be liberally granted at the discretion of the trial courts. Dallam v. Bowman, 16 Mo. 225, 226; 1852 WL 4091, *2 (1852). For examples of parties attempting to use amendment of a petition to alter venue determination, see infra Part III......