Richardson v. Pitts

• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. PITTS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

71 Mo. 128

RICHARDSON

v.PITTS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

Error to Howard Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

The circuit court decreed that an account be had and taken between plaintiffs and defendants, as partners, each party to be held responsible in proportion to stock subscribed to the articles of association.

Jas. H. Robertson and N. C Kouns for plaintiffs in error.

C. A. Winslow and Shackelford, Herndon & Herndon for defendants in error.

HENRY, J.

Plaintiffs and defendants attempted to incorporate “The Roanoke Central District Mechanical & Agricultural Association,” but failed to file articles of association with the Secretary of State, and, therefore, under the decision of this court in Hurt v. Salisbury, 55 Mo. 310, the company acquired no corporate existence. In order to carry on the business of the supposed corporation, plaintiffs, selected for the purpose by their associates, expended, and in their individual capacity became liable, as sureties, for the corporation, for about the sum of $3,600. Judgments were obtained against the company as a corporation, and its real estate was sold and purchased by the association, at the price of $2,000, which was paid by certain of the members named in the petition, each paying an amount specified in the petition. There remained of said judgments unpaid a balance of $537.29, and there were also other debts outstanding against the association. This suit was against all the members of the company, for an account and settlement of its affairs. The original petition alleged the foregoing facts and asked a decree for the sale of said land for the payment of said debts, and for the payment by each member of his proportional share to make up any deficiency, and for general relief. No bill of exceptions was preserved, and, therefore, we have to consider only such errors, if any, as appear in the record proper.

There was a demurrer to the original petition, which was overruled, but the defendants afterward filed their answer, and thereby waived the demurrer. No exceptions were saved to any declaration of law, or the refusal to make any, but as this is a chancery cause, it is immaterial, if the court rendered the proper judgment, whether it erred or not in giving or refusing declarations of law The third assignment of errors, that the petition is multifarious, was not raised by demurrer, and cannot now be considered. The court did not err in ordering an amendment to the original petition to bring before it all parties interested in the controversy. The court had jurisdiction. It was a personal action and a portion of the defendants resided in Howard county, where the suit was instituted. It does not matter that there was no verdict or finding of facts upon which the judgment was rendered. The court was not required by law to submit issues to a jury for...