Revis v. Lamme & Bros.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Citation | 2 Mo. 207 |
| Parties | REVIS v. LAMME & BROTHERS. |
| Decision Date | 31 May 1830 |
2 Mo. 207
REVIS
v.
LAMME & BROTHERS.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
May Term, 1830.
M'GIRK, C. J.
Lamme & Brothers brought their action of debt before a justice of the peace on a note made by the defendant to one Mark
[2 Mo. 208]
Revis, and and assigned by him to Lamme & Brothers, by the name of Lamme & Brothers, and by no other name. The summons is to answer to Lamme & Brothers The plaintiffs before the justice had judgment, and the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court. When the cause came into the Circuit Court, the appellant moved the court to reverse the judgment and to quash the summons, because the names of the plaintiffs were not given; which motion the court overruled, and gave judgment for costs. The appellees then moved the court to dismiss the cause from the docket, because, as they alleged, the judgment before the justice was rendered by default, and, therefore, no appeal could lie till the party had first moved the justice for a new trial, which was not done. The court sustained this motion, and dismissed the cause, and gave judgment generally in the case for costs. As to the last motion, it will be enough to say, that the record does not show that the judgment before the justice was by default. The last motion was predicated on a fact not supported by the record. So that no question can arise as to the propriety of the appeal.
The case being dismissed, we will not order it to be reinstated. Where the proceedings are by writ of error, a mandamus would no doubt be an appropriate remedy. See the case of Chambers v. Astor, 1 Mo. Rep. 327. But here there is a judgment for costs, and a motion to quash proceedings has been overruled. These things are fit subjects for a writ of error to operate on.
The only point arising out of the case is, did the court err in refusing to quash the summons and proceedings? This court is well satisfied that the court erred on this point. The law requires that the parties should set out their names. If the suit had been in the name of Lamme & Co., it would clearly have been had; and in this case it is as bad, if not worse. Lamme & Brothers is no proper description of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haney v. Thomson
...on writ of error held that the circuit court committed error in denying defendants' motion to quash the summons. [Revis v. Lamme Bros., 2 Mo. 207.] It is the common law and now the general rule, and where the question has been directly raised by appeal or certiorari, the courts are uniform ......
-
Haney v. Thomson, 33623.
...on writ of error held that the circuit court committed error in denying defendants' motion to quash the summons. [Revis v. Lamme Bros., 2 Mo. 207.] It is the common law and now the general rule, and where the question has been directly raised by appeal or certiorari, the courts are uniform ......
-
The State v. Patterson
...defendant had the right to know who his accusers were, and if a company or co-partnership of whom composed. In Revis v. Lamme & Brothers, 2 Mo. 207, it was held that Lamme & Brothers was not a proper description of the plaintiffs, and it would seem that if such a description is not sufficie......
-
Unifund CCR Partners v. Kinnamon, WD73547
...individuals composing a firm or company not incorporated, must be set forth with certainty in the declaration."); Revis v. Lamme & Bros., 2 Mo. 207, 208 (1830). Thus, it is undisputed that Unifund, a general partnership, had no authority to file the present actions in its firm name alone. T......