Humphrey v. Ownby
Citation | 104 S.W.2d 398 |
Decision Date | 23 April 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 5770.,5770. |
Parties | HUMPHREY v. OWNBY et al. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; James V. Billings, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Novelle Humphrey against Robert Ownby and others. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Reid & Evrard, of Blythville, Ark., and Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for appellant.
Von Mayes, of Caruthersville, Orville Zimmerman, of Kennett, and McKay & Peal, of Caruthersville, for respondents.
This action was begun on April 6, 1935, by the filing of a petition in the circuit court of Pemiscot county, on which process was duly issued and served on the defendants, and thereafter said cause was transferred, on change of venue, to the circuit court of Dunklin county. Thereafter, on November 7, 1935, at and during the October term, 1935, of said circuit court, plaintiff filed her amended petition, which petition is in words and figures as follows, caption and signatures omitted.
Thereafter, on November 18, 1935, the defendant, S. E. Juden, filed his demurrer to the plaintiff's amended petition; and on February the 25th the circuit court entered its finding, order, and judgment in said cause, sustaining the demurrer to plaintiff's amended petition, and plaintiff thereupon dismissed said cause of action as to defendant Robert Ownby, and he was finally discharged therein, and the plaintiff refusing further to plead in said cause and electing to stand on her amended petition, the court entered its order and judgment sustaining the demurrer as to the defendant S. E. Juden and dismissing the cause as to defendant S. E. Juden.
Thereafter, on February 26th plaintiff filed her motion for new trial, which was by the court overruled, and this cause is now before...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maxwell v. Andrew County
...rather than their official, capacities, for which the surety on the sheriff's bond can, in no event, be held liable. Humphrey v. Ownby, 104 S.W.2d 398; Clement Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Usrey v. Yarnell, 188 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; McVea v. Day, 6 La. App. 382; People v. Beach, 49......
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Alford
...Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; McVea v. Day, 6 La.App. 382; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, relied on by counsel for the Casualty In transporting the property of the Bureau back to the Oklahoma City office, McConnell ......
-
Clark v. West
...be held liable for damages occasioned by the deputy's negligent driving. Usrey v. Yarnell, 181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988 and Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398, are to the same effect; while in Williams v. Priddy, 188 Ark. 137, 64 S.W.2d 553, the statement of facts is so meager that w......
-
Culpepper v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...181 Ark. 804, 27 S.W.2d 988; Gray v. De Bretton, 192 La. 628, 188 So. 722; Clement v. Dunn, 114 Cal.App. 60, 299 P. 545; Humphrey v. Ownby, Mo.App., 104 S.W.2d 398. second question propounded by the Court of Appeals is answered in the negative. All the Justices concur, except ATKINSON, J., ......