Mulholland v. Rapp
| Decision Date | 31 March 1872 |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 42 |
| Parties | JAMES MULHOLLAND, Appellant, v. JULIUS RAPP, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Cline, Jamison & Day, for appellant.
R. E. Rombauer, for respondent.
The petition set forth that the plaintiff received the privilege from the Pacific Railroad Company of using one of its stone quarries; that he entered into a written agreement with defendant, which he sets out, the effect of which was to lease the quarry to defendant for an indefinite period. The defendant was to work the same for his own benefit, but in consideration of the transfer he was to employ the plaintiff as foreman, and for his sole wages was to pay him one-half of the net profits of the quarry. The agreement is long, and provides among other things that defendant shall keep books so as to show the profits, and shall render monthly statements to plaintiff. The petition states that defendant took possession and worked the quarry, the plaintiff acting as foreman, and charges that he made large profits, but failed to keep correct books and make correct statements, but kept false books and refused to pay the plaintiff the share of the profits due him. The petition is long and prolix, abounding in unnecessary details and in matters wholly irrelevant, and the relief sought is equitable in its nature. The plaintiff treats the defendant as a partner, which the contract shows him not to be, and asks for an account, an injunction, the appointment of a receiver, etc. A temporary injunction was allowed, which was afterwards dissolved, and defendant demurred to the petition generally, and because of the improper union of causes of action. The demurrer was sustained, judgment was entered upon it, and the plaintiff appeals.
The petition is demurrable for the reasons named. It was framed in view only of equitable relief, and no other is sought; but the facts set out do not warrant such relief. The parties were not partners; there is a written contract which the defendant is charged to have violated, and upon which he is holden; and possession of the premises, under the facts stated, could have been obtained in an action for unlawful detainer. There were complete remedies by ordinary suit; there is no ground for equitable relief, and hence the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute the cause of action instituted.
I have examined the petition to see whether a good one could be gleaned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sedgwick v. National Bank of Webb City
...causes of action that should not be united, and that causes are commingled, are waived. Dorrance v. Dorrance, 257 Mo. 317, 325; Mulholland v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Stone Perkins, 217 Mo. 586, 604; Gardner v. Robertson, 208 Mo. 605; Jordan v. Transit Co., 202 Mo. 418; McQuade v. Suburban Ry. Co.,......
-
Leimer v. Hulse
... ... precludes plaintiff in error from making a proper and ... adequate defense to his rights and property. Mulholland ... v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Otis v. Bond, 35 Mo. 128; ... Roberts v. Anderson, 254 S.W. 723. (15) The trial ... court erred in its unreasonable ... ...
-
Mitchell v. Health Culture Co.
...Mo. 317, 165 S.W. 783; Watts v. Meyer, 189 S.W. 29; Crowley v. Sutton, 209 S.W. 902; Darrow v. Briggs, 261 Mo. 244, 169 S.W. 118; Mulholland v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Otis Bank, 35 Mo. 128; Brown v. Ry. Co., 20 Mo.App. 427; Fadley v. Smith, 23 Mo.App. 87; Wilson v. Ry. Co., 67 Mo.App. 443; Reed v......
-
Kirrane v. Boone
...Co., 29 S.W.2d 201; Dorrance v. Dorrance, 165 S.W. 783, 257 Mo. 317; Watts v. Meyer, 189 S.W. 29; Darrow v. Briggs, 169 S.W. 118; Mulholland v. Rapp, 50 Mo. 42; Roberts Anderson, 254 S.W. 723. (5) There is a misjoinder of parties defendant. The Bank Commissioner was not a proper party. Stur......