Robinson v. Hood
| Decision Date | 30 April 1878 |
| Citation | 67 Mo. 660 |
| Parties | ROBINSON v. HOOD et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jasper Common Pleas Court.--HON. E. V. BROWN, Judge.
G. H. Walser with E. J. Montague for appellants.
H. B. Hamilton for respondent.
1. Motion for new trial not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, we, therefore, cannot notice any of the alleged errors occurring at the trial. Jefferson City v. Opel, 67 Mo. 394; Collins v. Barding, 65 Mo. 496; Stevenson v. Saline County, Ib. 425.
2. It is, however, insisted that the judgment must be reversed because of the grounds urged by the motion in arrest. As to Sarah A. Robinson, one of the minors who became of age pending the trial, it was perfectly competent for the court to permit her to come in and sue as an adult co-plaintiff. This objection is absolutely frivolous.
The same may be said of the infants suing by their curator instead of their next friend. If the infants had no legal capacity to sue, the objection should have been taken by demurrer or answer. Defendants, failing to thus object, must be deemed to have waived any objection in this particular. 2 Wag. Stat., section 10, page 1015; Jones v. Steele, 36 Mo. 324. Besides, our statute of jeofails, (2 Wag. Stat., section 19, page 1036,) provides that, if the verdict or judgment be for the infant, as in the present instance, such judgment shall not be stayed, reversed, impaired or in any way affected because the infant appeared by attorney. The statute would seem to be broad enough to reach a case of this sort, where the judgment goes in favor of the infant, even if the appearance by curator was unauthorized. But be this as it may, our statute (2 Wag. Stat., section 11, page 674,) expressly authorizes guardians and curators to prosecute and defend for their minors. Larned and Wife v. Renshaw, 34 Mo. 458, and cases cited. The provisions of the statute to which defendants call our attention (2 Wag. Stat., sections 1-4, page 1003,) do not apply where there is already a duly appointed guardian or curator. The result is that the judgment must be affirmed.
All concur.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
... ... J. 1134; 46 C. J. 473; 31 C. J. 1130; 7 R. C ... L. 1067; Gray v. Clements, 246 S.W. 940; Clark ... v. Crosswhite, 28 Mo.App. 34; Robinson v. Hood, ... 67 Mo. 660; Upton v. Bush, 121 S.W. 1005; Grey ... v. Indep. Order of Foresters, 196 S.W. 779; State ex ... rel v. Broaddus, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Brickey v. Nolte
...previously supposed dead for his administrator. R. S. 1939, sec. 270. (c) Suits against guardians on infant's attaining majority. Robinson v. Hood, 67 Mo. 660; Renfro Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 148 Mo.App. 258, 129 S.W. 444; Shattuck v. Wolf, 72 Kan. 366, 83 P. 1093; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mo......
-
Judson v. Walker
... ... proper forum. 5 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 428, 429; George v ... Williamson, 26 Mo. 190; Zoll v. Soper, 75 Mo ... 460; Jackman v. Robinson, 64 Mo. 289; Central ... Natl. Bank v. Hume, 128 U.S. 195; Woehner Am. Law of ... Admr., sec. 296. It is a matter not of ancillary but of ... is the act of the ward by his curator. [ Larned v ... Renshaw, 37 Mo. 458; Robinson v. Hood, 67 Mo ... 660.] In Catron v. Lafayette Co., 106 Mo. 659, 17 ... S.W. 577, it was held that a guardian could sue in his own ... name upon ... ...
-
Thomas v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company
...reverse, or impair judgments in favor of infants merely because the infant appeared in the suit by attorney only. It was held in Robinson v. Hood, 67 Mo. 660, that: statute would seem to be broad enough to reach a case of this sort, where the judgment goes in favor of the infant, even if th......