Klingensmith v. Thurman, 30512
| Decision Date | 20 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 30512,30512 |
| Citation | 339 S.W.2d 300 |
| Parties | Jessie KLINGENSMITH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. O. THURMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Frank W. May, Flat River, for appellant.
Robert A. McIlrath, Flat River, for respondent.
BRADY, Commissioner.
This action was brought on an account assigned by the Hovis Lumber Company, Inc., to the respondent. The cause was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts which showed that the appellant had an account due and owing to the lumber company for $64.03; the assignment recited that it was made for $1 and other valuable consideration; that the magistrate court rendered judgment for the respondent; that appellant does not deny the purchase of the lumber or that the account had not been paid, but claims that the respondent did not pay the lumber company '* * * over Fifty Per cent (50%) for said account and wants to make an offer of proof that the Plaintiff only paid Fifty Percent (50%) or Thirty-Two Dollars Thirty Cents ($32.30) for said account,' while respondent contends this is a matter between assignor and assignee, and that the evidence is irrelevant and immaterial to the issues of the action on the account; and that the appellant contends that to bring an action on this assignment, the respondent must be a licensed attorney, while appellant contends that he has a right to bring suit in his own name and represent himself. The circuit court refused appellant's offer of proof, finding that '* * * any evidence as to the amount paid by the Plaintiff for said account is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial * * *', that the respondent could bring suit in his own name and act as his own attorney, and rendered judgment for respondent in the amount of $64.63, the total amount of the account. Proper after trial motion was overruled and this appeal perfected. The case was submitted to us in June of this year upon briefs. Respondent is represented by counsel for this appeal.
We agree with appellant that the respondent cannot represent another in bringing this action, whether he does so for consideration or not, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W.2d 945, loc. cit. page 955, 125 A.L.R. 1149, but we do not understand appellant's offer of proof to go to such a matter. By that offer, appellant stated that respondent only paid $32.30, or 50%, for the account, but nowhere in this record does any allegation appear that the lumber company who assigned this account has retained any interest therein. The assignment is complete and unqualified by any reservation of interest by the assignor. It reads:
'Assignment
'Know...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Ins. Co., In re, 63975
...may represent himself in court, Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo. 932, 130 S.W.2d 945, 955 (banc 1939); Klingensmith v. Thurman, 339 S.W.2d 300, 300-301 (Mo.App.1960), a corporation is not prohibited from representing itself through house counsel. However, when an insurance company, s......
-
Parker v. Wallace
... ... In this state, a litigant may of course appear and represent himself in his own case, Klingensmith v. Thurman, Mo.App., 339 S.W.2d 300, 301(3, 4), but the observations made directly and by inference ... ...
-
North Port Development Co. v. Graff
...he is not an attorney, he can only represent himself and we will hereafter consider him the only appellant. Klingensmith v. Thurman, 339 S.W.2d 300, 300-301 (Mo.App.1960). 3 We also note that even though Mr. Goldstein, a layman, personally wrote his brief and made his oral argument he is su......