Flinton v. Palmer, No. 11626.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtEllison
Citation177 S.W. 777
PartiesFLINTON et al. v. PALMER.
Decision Date18 June 1915
Docket NumberNo. 11626.
177 S.W. 777
FLINTON et al.
v.
PALMER.
No. 11626.
Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.
June 18, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; D. E. Bird, Judge.

Action by A. D. Flinton and others against W. K. Palmer. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Sebree, Conrad & Wendorff, of Kansas City, for appellant. G. B. Silverman, of Kansas City, for respondents.

ELLISON, P. J.


Plaintiff's action is stated in a petition containing two counts, each on a promissory note. The judgment was for the plaintiff.

The petition being in two counts, the verdict should have been found on each. Instead of this, the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict in one sum, the amount of both counts. This was error, for which the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded. The instruction should not have been given, and the judgment should have been arrested. Boyce v. Christy, 47

Mo. 70; Seibert v. Allen, 61 Mo. 482; Murphy v. Ry. Co., 228 Mo. 152, 128 S. W. 481. It seems that after the institution of this suit defendant filed a petition in bankruptcy in the federal court. He set this up in his answer. He likewise applied to the trial court for a stay of proceedings as provided by the bankrupt law. This was refused. Defendant now claims to have been duly discharged in bankruptcy. As the cause is to be remanded, an answer setting up the discharge can be filed, and the cause adjudicated as the law may require.

Reversed and remanded. All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; State ex rel. v. Peterson, 142 Mo. 526, 39 S.W. 453; St. Louis v. Senter Comm. Co., 340 Mo. 1078, ......
  • Williams v. Nat. L. & A. Ins. Co., No. 16114.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 23, 1928
    ...the recovery for each was asked in separate counts. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. [Flinton et al. v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Bigelow v. Northern Mo. R.R. Co., 48 Mo. 510; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, K.C. & Northern R.R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Ownes v. Hannibal & St. Jos......
  • Frankel v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., No. 11650.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 18, 1915
    ...or in connection with other language used in the instrument or in reference to the subject-matter to which they relate, are susceptible 177 S.W. 777 of the interpretation given them by the assured, although in fact intended otherwise by the insured. Stark v. John Hancock, etc., Ins. Co., 17......
3 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo. 98, 112 S.W. 499; State ex rel. v. Peterson, 142 Mo. 526, 39 S.W. 453; St. Louis v. Senter Comm. Co., 340 Mo. 1078, ......
  • Williams v. Nat. L. & A. Ins. Co., No. 16114.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 23, 1928
    ...the recovery for each was asked in separate counts. This was error for which the judgment must be reversed. [Flinton et al. v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Bigelow v. Northern Mo. R.R. Co., 48 Mo. 510; Sturgeon v. St. Louis, K.C. & Northern R.R. Co., 65 Mo. 569; Ownes v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R.R.......
  • Frankel v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., No. 11650.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 18, 1915
    ...or in connection with other language used in the instrument or in reference to the subject-matter to which they relate, are susceptible 177 S.W. 777 of the interpretation given them by the assured, although in fact intended otherwise by the insured. Stark v. John Hancock, etc., Ins. Co., 17......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT