Downey v. United Weatherproofing
| Decision Date | 10 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 42418,No. 1,42418,1 |
| Citation | 241 S.W.2d 1007 |
| Parties | DOWNEY et al. v. UNITED WEATHERPROOFING, Inc. et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman, Foulke & Warten, Joplin, for appellants.
Keller, Burnett & Wilbert, Pittsburg, Kan., Bond & Bond, Ray Bond and John S. Bond, all of Joplin, for respondent, United Weatherproofing, Inc.
COIL, Commissioner.
Plaintiffs-appellants, by a first amended petition in three counts, sued defendant-respondent corporation and two individuals, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendant corporation filed its separate motion to dismiss each count of plaintiffs' first amended petition on the ground that each count failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the corporate defendant. The separate motion was sustained and a judgment of dismissal entered as between plaintiffs and defendant corporation, from which judgment plaintiffs have appealed.
The transcript of the record does not disclose any disposition of the cause as to the individual defendants. Inquiry directed to the clerk of the trial court confirms the fact that there has been no disposition as to the individual defendants. Respondents' brief contains the statement that the corporate defendant was the only one served and 'The other defendants, to-wit: V. A. Walker and L. W. Steetle were never served with process and are not parties to this action at this time.' Obviously, however, the individual defendants are still parties to the action at this time. Failure to have served process on them by any given time, without any action or disposition as to such defendants by the trial court, would not eliminate them as parties to this action at this time. A party to an action is a person whose name is designated on the record as plaintiff or defendant. 67 C.J.S., Parties, Sec. 1b(2), p. 888.
No disposition...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M & A Elec. Power Co-op. v. True
... ... Downey v. United Weatherproofing, Mo., 241 S.W.2d 1007(1, 2); Cooper v. Barr, Mo., 413 S.W.2d 219, 221 ... ...
-
Roth v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France
...a party nevertheless. See, e.g., State ex rel. Schweitzer v. Greene, 438 S.W.2d 229, 231-32 (Mo. banc 1969); Downey v. United Weatherproofing, Inc., 241 S.W.2d 1007 (Mo.1951); Maurer v. Clark, 727 S.W.2d 210, 211 (Mo.App.1987). Rule 74.01(b), however, has created an exception. It allows an ......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Smith, 45442
...all defendants asserted to be jointly liable on a claim, consult Sec. 511.130; Ford v. Ford, Mo., 24 S.W.2d 990; Downey v. United Weatherproofing, Inc., Mo., 241 S.W.2d 1007; Wicker v. Knox Glass Associates, Inc., 362 Mo. 614, 242 S.W.2d 566, 571. With respect to the jurisdiction of a court......
-
Spires v. Edgar
...a final judgment (with specified exceptions), the trial court must have disposed of all issues and all parties. Downey v. United Weatherproofing, Inc., 241 S.W.2d 1007 (Mo.1951); Thomas v. Orrick Special School Dist., 246 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App.1952); Bays v. Lueth, 323 S.W.2d 236 (Mo.1959); Wi......
-
Section 2.9 Final Judgments in General
...been served. Garrett v. Finnell, 999 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Maurer, 727 S.W.2d at 211; Downey v. United Weatherproofing, 241 S.W.2d 1007 (Mo. 1951); Leonard v. Payne, 692 S.W.2d 11, 12 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985). If the verdict form does not resolve claims as to all defendants, the......