Hirt v. Hahn
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 61 Mo. 496 |
| Parties | JOHN HIRT, Respondent, v. WILLIAM HAHN, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
61 Mo. 496
JOHN HIRT, Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM HAHN, et al., Appellants.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
January Term, 1876.
Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court.
Finkelnburg & Rassieur, for Appellants.
The petition simply alleges, as a breach of the bond, that Bolhofner suffered and permitted liens to be filed, without averring that plaintiff was obliged to pay, or did in fact pay a dollar on account of liens.
In declaring on a penal bond, plaintiff must assign breaches specifically, showing particularly in what manner the covenant has been broken. (Steph. Plead., 337; Langford vs. Sanger, 40 Mo., 160.)
Slayback & Hæussler, for Respondent.
[61 Mo. 497]
WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case no objections are raised to the instructions or rulings of the court upon the trial, but reliance for a reversal is placed on two points, namely, that no sufficient breach was set out in the petition, and that the court erred in allowing counsel fees. The action was brought against defendants as sureties on a penal bond, executed by one Bolhofner, a builder, as principal, and was conditioned, among other things, to save plaintiff harmless from liens on account of a certain building, which Bolhofner had contracted to erect, and also to build the house according to an agreed plan, and by a specified day. The petition set out the bond, and then alleged as breaches with particularity that Bolhofner did not comply with his contract in building the house, and that he did not save the plaintiff harmless from liens thereon. We have no doubt about the sufficiency of the breaches assigned, but even if there was defectiveness in that regard, no objections were taken at the trial, and the point was raised for the first time by a motion in arrest. It then came too late, as there can be no doubt about the petition being good after verdict.
The second objection is, as to the allowance of counsel fees in defending the lien cases. But the record does not show that any such fees were allowed. The judgment is for damages, but it is not apparent that those fees composed a part of the damages.
It is true, upon the trial the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v. Bowling, 25514
...Mo. 410; Christian v. Life Ins. Co., 143 Mo. 460; Moore v. Transit Co., 193 Mo. 411. (c) Wright v. Sanderson, 20 Mo.App. 534; Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496; Spink v. Mueller, 77 Mo.App. 85; Walter v. Huggins, 164 Mo.App. 69; Simons v. Wittmann, 113 Mo.App. 357; Drainage District v. Surety Co., 2......
-
Kennedy v. Bowling, 25514.
...410; Christian v. Life Ins. Co., 143 Mo. 460; Moore v. Transit Co., 193 Mo. 411. (c) Wright v. Sanderson, 20 Mo. App. 534; Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496; Spink v. Mueller, 77 Mo. App. 85; Walter v. Huggins, 164 Mo. App. 69; Simons v. Wittmann, 113 Mo. App. 357; Drainage District v. Surety Co., 2......
-
The Salmon Falls Bank v. Leyser
...informal in some of its parts, it is good after verdict. State ex rel. v. Williams and Edmonson v. Phillips, supra; see also, Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496; State to use v. Clark, 42 Mo. 519; Schultz v. Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 331; Section 2113, Revised Statutes 1889, clauses 8 and 9. [116 Mo. 74] 5. A......
-
Simons v. Wittmann
...value of the building completed in accordance with the requirements of the contract. [Haysler v. Owen, 61 Mo. 270 at 270-274; Hirt v. Hahn, 61 Mo. 496-498; Spink v. Mueller, 77 Mo.App. 85, 93; McCormack v. Lynch, 69 Mo.App. 524-529; Fairbanks, etc., Co. v. DeLissa, 36 Mo.App. 711; Fletcher ......