Jones v. Steele
| Decision Date | 31 October 1865 |
| Parties | JOHN J. H. JONES, Plaintiff in Error, v. JAMES M. STEELE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas.
Dyer, for defendant in error.
Campbell & Hesser, for plaintiff in error.
Though it may be true that at the time of suit brought the plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of the statute, yet the defendant could not take advantage of the omission or defect by motion in arrest. The objection was not taken at the proper time and in the proper way. (Woods et al. v. The State of Mo., 10 Mo. 698.) The defendant should have raised that issue by plea in abatement or answer, and that is the only way it could be done. (Schermerhorn v. Jenkins, 7 Johns. 373.) A defendant cannot move in arrest for anything which might have been pleaded in abatement. (2 Black. 1120.)
Plaintiff, who is a minor, brought his suit in the Louisiana Court of Common Pleas against the defendant, and obtained a verdict in his favor. In the caption of his petition he purported to sue by his next friend; the defendant filed his answer to the merits, and went to trial. After the rendition of the verdict by the jury, the defendant moved the court to arrest the judgment, because no next friend had been appointed for the plaintiff by the clerk or the court, as required by statute. The plaintiff then presented his petition to the court, praying the appointment of a next friend (he same person who purported to act as such in the caption of the petition) accompanied with the written acceptance and bond of the proposed ext friend.
The court overruled the application and declined to make the appointment, and then arrested the judgment.
The first error assigned in this cause is the action of the court in sustaining the motion in arrest of judgment, and the second is refusing the application of plaintiff to have a next friend appointed. The defect in the petition was apparent upon its face; the caption forms no part of it. To have made it regular, there should have been a substantive averment or allegation that an appointment of next friend was duly made in the mode pointed out by law; and in the omission of such averment, the petition was demurrable. The defendant also had his election to raise the objection by answer, if he saw fit to do so. But when he did not avail himself of his privilege, either by demurrer or answer, he is deemed by our statute to have waived all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Peterson
...action, and the objection that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Sec. 774, R. S. 1929; Jones v. Steel, 36 Mo. 324; Elfrank Seiler, 54 Mo. 134; Paddock v. Somes, 102 Mo. 226; Temple Co. v. Young, 179 Mo.App. 278. An objection to a petition in equit......
-
Jones v. Peterson
...action, and the objection that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Sec. 774, R.S. 1929; Jones v. Steel, 36 Mo. 324; Elfrank v. Seiler, 54 Mo. 134; Paddock v. Somes, 102 Mo. 226; Temple Co. v. Young, 179 Mo. App. 278. An objection to a petition in eq......
-
Spillane By Guardian v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
... ... to be given by the guardian, which was the proper practice ... Temple v. Price, 24 Mo. 288; Jones v ... Steele, 36 Mo. 324; Higgins v. Railroad, 36 Mo ... 418, 431. (2) The defect as to want of plaintiff's ... capacity to sue appeared on the ... ...
-
Padgett v. Smith
...he had appeared by an attorney alone. [Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258, 33 S.W. 6; Chrisman v. Divinia, 141 Mo. 122, 41 S.W. 920; Jones v. Steele, 36 Mo. 324; Holton Towner, 81 Mo. 360.] The saving grace of the Statute of Jeofails settles the question and settles it against appellant. By sec......