Jensen v. Hinderks, No. 33511.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtGantt
Citation92 S.W.2d 108
PartiesMARIA JENSEN, Appellant, v. ELIZABETH R. HINDERKS, ELIZABETH R. HINDERKS, Executor of the Estate of JOHN JENSEN, Respondent, and MINNIE WOOD and DANIEL DICE, Appellants.
Docket NumberNo. 33511.
Decision Date10 March 1936
92 S.W.2d 108
MARIA JENSEN, Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH R. HINDERKS, ELIZABETH R. HINDERKS, Executor of the Estate of JOHN JENSEN, Respondent, and MINNIE WOOD and DANIEL DICE, Appellants.
No. 33511.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Division One, March 10, 1936.

Appeal from Holt Circuit Court.Hon. John D. McNeely, Special Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

E.G. and J.J. Robison and John G. Parkinson for Maria Jensen; Orin J. Adams for Minnie Wood and Daniel Dice.

(1) The court erred in sustaining demurrer filed by respondent to the second amended petition of the appellant, Maria Jensen. Freeman v. Freeman, 57 S.E. 292; Dexter v. Codman, 148 Mass. 421, 19 N.E. 517; In re Benton, 131 Cal. 472, 63 Pac. 775; 68 C.J., p. 931, sec. 674; R.S. 1929, sec. 537; Watson v. Alderman, 146 Mo. 348; Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin, 152 S.W. 39; Smith v. Smith, 37 S.W. (2d) 904; Secs. 7, 221, 537, R.S. 1929; 31 A.L.R. 327; 47 C.J., p. 117, sec. 223; Bamforth v. Ihmsen, 204 Pac. 345; Buel v. St. L. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 564. (2) The court erred in sustaining respondent's objection to appellant, Maria Jensen's, application to amend and in refusing her the right to amend. Buel v. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 564; Hackett v. Van Frank, 119 Mo. App. 653; Walker v. Railroad Co., 193 Mo. 473; Cytron v. Transit Co., 205 Mo. 700; Turner v. Noble, 249 S.W. 104; Drakopulos v. Biddle, 231 S.W. 926; Courtney v. Blackwell, 150 Mo. 271; Senn v. Railroad Co., 124 Mo. 625; Scovill v. Glasner, 70 Mo. 449; Burnham v. Tillery & Co., 85 Mo. App. 457; Clothing Co. v. Railroad Co., 71 Mo. App. 246; Rippee v. Railroad Co., 154 Mo. 364; Stewart v. Vanhorn, 91 Mo. App. 647; Bowen v. Buckner, 157 S.W. 829; Pyle v. University City, 279 S.W. 217; Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Mo. 489; Smith v. Smith, 37 S.W. (2d) 904. (3) The court erred in dismissing the petition without hearing evidence thereon and without having adjudication upon the will. Hogan v. Hinchey, 195 Mo. 527; Johnson v. Brewn, 227 Mo. 392; Smith v. Smith, 37 S.W. (2d) 904.

Pross T. Cross, Gerald Cross and R.H. Musser for respondent; K.D. Cross of counsel.

(1) The court did not err in sustaining respondent's demurrer to plaintiff's last amended petition. Secs. 325, 537, R.S. 1929; Braenel v. Ruenther, 193 S.W. 283, 270 Mo. 603, L.R.A. 1918A; Klocke v. Klocke, 276 Mo. 578; Hamilton v. O'Neal, 9 Mo. 18; State ex rel. Damon v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 674, 152 S.W. 341; Gruender v. Frank, 267 Mo. 718; Hahn v. Hammerstein, 198 S.W. 833, 272 Mo. 248; Barker v. Ry. Co., 91 Mo. 86; Chandler v. Railroad Co., 215 Mo. 601; Smith v. Smith, 37 S.W. (2d) 902; Robertson v. Robertson, 223 S.W. 32, 144 Ark. 556; Thompson v. Turner, 89 N.E. 315; Saunders v. Saunders, 141 N.E. 708, 310 Ill. 371; In re Adkins Will, 162 N.W. 193, 179 Iowa, 1025; Helfrich v. Nockel, 122 Atl. 360, 143 Md. 371. (2) Amendments stating a new cause of action or stating one for the first time, are barred if the Statute of Limitation has run. The court did not err in refusing plaintiff permission to amend her second amended petition. State ex rel. Damon v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 674, 152 S.W. 341; Russell v. Nelson, 295 S.W. 118, 317 Mo. 148; Gresham v. Talbot, 31 S.W. (2d) 766; Wasson v. Boland, 136 Mo. App. 622; 37 C.J. 1078; 49 C.J. 503; Salyers v. United States, 257 Fed. 255; Arpe v. Mesker Bros., 19 S.W. (2d) 668; Ross v. Land Co., 162 Mo. 317; Jordan v. Ry. Co., 226 S.W. 1023; Bank v. Thompson, 223 S.W. 734; Bricken v. Cross, 163 Mo. 449; Baker v. Railroad Co., 34 Mo. App. 98; Sims v. Field, 24 Mo. App. 557; Henan v. Glann, 129 Mo. 325; Pattison, Mo. Code Pleading (2 Ed.), secs. 1069, 1090, 1146; 37 C.J. 1028, pp. 507, 516, 1079; 49 C.J. 503; David v. Crump, 252 S.W. 606, 159 Ark. 335; Milauskis v. Railroad Co., 122 N.E. 78, 286 Iowa, 547; Chalmers v. Chicago, 130 N.E. 736, 297 Ill. 444; Taylor v. Swift & Co., 219 Pac. 516, 114 Kan. 431; Strausbaugh v. Steward, 96 Atl. 863, 127 Md. 632; Capps v. Railroad Co., 111 S.E. 533, 183 N.C. 181; Mays v. U.N. Gas Co., 112 Atl. 171, 278 Pa. 56; Bilknop v. Construction Co., 264 Fed. 676; Spillman v. Young, 186 Pac. 368; Candy Co. v. Schenk, 195 Mo. App. 597, 194 S.W. 754. (3) The court did not err in dismissing the petition without hearing evidence thereon and without having adjudication on the will. State ex rel. Damon v. McQuillin, 246 Mo. 674, 152 S.W. 341; Smith v. Smith, 37 S.W. (2d) 902; Hogan v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • In re Goldsberry Estate, 5984
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 29 Julio 1938
    ...re Carlson's Estate, 153 Ore. 327, 336, 56 P.2d 347; In re Santini's Estate , 56 Nev. 350, 53 P.2d 338; Jensen v. Hinderks, 338 Mo. 459, 92 S.W.2d 108; In re Meredith's Estate, 275 Mich. 278, 292, 266 N.W. 351, 104 A.L.R. 348; Burk v. Morain, Iowa, 223 Iowa 399, 272 N.W. 441, 112 A.L.R. 79;......
  • State ex rel. Cooper v. Cloyd, No. 55441
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1971
    ...to be contrary to that in Campbell v. St. Louis Union Trust Co. (Banc), 346 Mo. 200, 139 S.W.2d 935; Jensen v. Hinderks, 338 Mo. 459, 92 S.W.2d 108; and Watson v. Alderson, 146 Mo. 333, 48 S.W. 478, whereupon the court of appeals transferred the cause here for final determination pursuant t......
  • Miller v. Munzer, No. 28414
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 21 Octubre 1952
    ...is not totally different from that alleged in the original petition. Gresham v. Talbott, supra; Jensen v. Hinderks, 338 Mo. 459, 92 S.W.2d 108; Cytron v. St. Louis Transit Co., 205 Mo. 692, 104 S.W. 109, and cases Various tests have been applied in determining whether a new cause of action ......
  • Calloway v. Miller, No. 5695
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 26 Enero 1954
    ...such freedom need no comment or citation. A case almost identical to the one before us is Jensen v. Hinderks, 1936, 338 Mo. 459, 92 S.W.2d 108. In that case a similar amendment was allowed even though the cause was thereby saved from a statute of limitations. Also see Early v. Burt, 1932, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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