Planck v. Planck
Citation | 199 S.W. 1183 |
Decision Date | 03 December 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 18751.,18751. |
Parties | PLANCK v. PLANCK et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; Geo. W. Wanamaker, Judge. Bill by Stella Planck against Samuel W. Planck and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. As to Samuel W. Planck, judgment affirmed and cause dismissed, and as to the remaining defendant, judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Barlow, Barlow & Kautz, of Bethany, and A. G. Knight, of Trenton, for appellant. J. C. Wilson, of Bethany, for respondents.
A demurrer to the petition having been sustained, plaintiff refused to plead over, and judgment against her was rendered. This appeal followed. The sole question is whether a cause of action is stated in the petition. The questions presented do not require that the petition be set out in full. It is sufficient to say that it is alleged plaintiff and defendant Samuel W. Planck were husband and wife (though now divorced), and that, during the marriage, Samuel W. and defendant Wilbur M. Planck wrongfully conspired together to secure plaintiff's incarceration and detention in a sanatorium on a charge she was insane, and that they carried out this conspiracy. The petition sufficiently charges the conspiracy, and sets up facts showing plaintiff's incarceration and detention were wrongfully procured by defendants, acting jointly. Since this appeal was taken, the questions in this case have all been decided in Rogers v. Rogers, 265 Mo. 200, 177 S. W. 382. We think correct the conclusions reached in that case. The judgment is affirmed as to Samuel W. Planck, and the case dismissed as to him. As to Wilbur M. Planck, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brawner v. Brawner
......114; Rosenblum v. Rosenblum, 231 Mo.App. 276, 96 S.W.2d 1082; Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co., 339 Mo. 582, 98 S.W.2d 645; Planck v. Planck, Mo.Sup., 199 S.W. 1183. We need not discuss these cases individually because they all purported to follow Rogers v. Rogers as being ......
-
Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co.
...in the employ of defendant. Willott v. Willott, 333 Mo. 896, 62 S.W.2d 1084; Ex parte Badger, 226 S.W. 936, 286 Mo. 139; Planck v. Planck, 199 S.W. 1183; Rogers Rogers, 177 S.W. 382, 265 Mo. 200; Rice v. Gray, 34 S.W. 567; Faris v. Hope, 298 F. 727; Maine v. Maine & Son, 201 N.W. 20, 198 Io......
-
Willott v. Willott
...... respondent's demurrer to appellant's petition. Secs. 704, 2998, 3003, R. S. 1929; Rogers v. Rogers, 265. Mo. 200, 177 S.W. 382; Planck v. Planck, 199 S.W. 1183; Butterfield v. Butterfield, 195 Mo.App. 37,. 187 S.W. 295; Faris v. Hope, 298 F. 727; Rice v. Gray, 225 Mo.App. 890, 34 ......
-
Willott v. Willott, 31185.
...respondent's demurrer to appellant's petition. Secs. 704, 2998, 3003, R.S. 1929; Rogers v. Rogers, 265 Mo. 200, 177 S.W. 382; Planck v. Planck, 199 S.W. 1183; Butterfield v. Butterfield, 195 Mo. App. 37, 187 S.W. 295; Faris v. Hope, 298 Fed. 727; Rice v. Gray, 225 Mo. App. 890, 34 S.W. (2d)......