Fuggle v. Hobbs

• Decision Date: 31 August 1868
• Citation: 42 Mo. 537
• Parties: THOMAS R. FUGGLE, Adm'r of BENEDICK WELDON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM R. HOBBS, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

42 Mo. 537

THOMAS R. FUGGLE, Adm'r of BENEDICK WELDON, Respondent,

v.WILLIAM R. HOBBS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1868.

Appeal from Davies County Court.

McFerran, for appellant.

I. The Circuit Court erred in striking out appellant's answer to respondent's petition. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 659, § 12; id. p. 677, § 45; Yallaly v. Yallaly, 39 Mo. 493; State ex rel. Oddle v. Sherman, 42 Mo. 210.)

II. The answer stricken out by the Circuit Court is a part of the record proper in the cause; and the amended answer subsequently filed by leave of the Circuit Court, containing a distinct defense not included in the answer stricken out, does not waive the error of the court committed in striking out said answer. (Bateson v. Clark et al., 37 Mo. 31; Normandser v. Hitchcock, 40 Mo. 178; State to the use of Tapley's Adm'r v. Matson et al., 38 Mo. 489.)

III. The errors of record are not cured by the verdict. (Jones v. Louderman, 39 Mo. 287.)

IV. The petition is not sufficient in law to support the judgment in this. It does not aver the death of Weldon, nor the appointment or qualification of the plaintiff as the executor of the said Weldon. (State to the use, etc., v. Matson, 38 Mo. 489.)

Vories & Vories, for respondent.

I. The appellant insists that the petition does not aver the representative character of the plaintiff so as to authorize him to sue. 1. The objection taken, if objection at all, should only have been taken by demurrer. The objection goes to the parties and is waived by the answer. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 658, §§ 6, 10.) 2. Neither the motion for a new trial nor the motion in arrest of judgment makes any objection to the sufficiency of the amended petition, nor in any manner complains of the sufficiency thereof; it is, therefore, too late to bring up that objection for the first time in the District Court. It is admitted that if the petition failed to “state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,” the defendant might make the objection by motion in arrest; but in this case the motion in arrest makes no objection to the petition. This has been twice waived; first by not demurring, and second by not setting up the objection in the motion in arrest or in the motion for a new trial. 3. The petition is sufficient. After setting forth the agreement, it states that the defendant has not paid the money either to the deceased or to the plaintiff, who is now the acting and lawful executor of the last will and testament of Weldon, deceased. It makes no difference that the plaintiff, in the caption of his petition, styles himself administrator, etc. The averments in the body of the petition are good and will prevail. It was not necessary for the plaintiff to show by what authority he was made executor, etc.; the allegations as they stand are good after verdict. (Higgins v. H. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 36 Mo. 431; Duncan v. Duncan, 19 Mo. 368.)

II. The appellant having at once obtained leave to file, and having filed, an amended answer upon which a trial was had, the appellant by this action waived his first action, and the same in contemplation of law was withdrawn. (Sweeny v. Willing, 6 Mo. 174; Barada v. Inhabitants of Carondelet, 8 Mo. 644; McCullum v. Lougan's Adm'r, 29 Mo. 451.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action instituted in the Davies Circuit Court to recover an amount alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff's testator.

The foundation of the suit was an agreement entered into in writing between the testator Weldon, in his lifetime, and the defendant Hobbs, whereby it was stipulated that Weldon assumed the payment of $787.50 to one Hamblin in part payment for a certain steam-mill formerly owned by Hamblin & Weldon, and then owned (at the date of the agreement) by Weldon & Hobbs, Hobbs agreeing that Weldon should have a lien on the mill till the amount was paid, specifying the length of time for which credit was to be given.

In the title to the petition the plaintiff is described as the administrator of Weldon, deceased, but in the body of the petition it is averred that he is the acting and lawful executor of the last will and testament of the deceased. There is no other allegation of his appointment, qualification, or representative capacity. The defendant filed an amended answer in which he did not controvert, deny, or in any way notice, the character in which plaintiff sued, but he set up other matters in defense to the action. This answer was, on motion of plaintiff's counsel, stricken out, because it was indefinite, uncertain, and inconsistent. To which action of the court in striking out said answer, the defendant at the time excepted. Defendant then filed his second amended answer, in which the only defense set up was a want of consideration to support the agreement sued on, and went to trial solely upon that...