Stalter v. Stalter

• Decision Date: 10 November 1910
• Citation: 131 S.W. 747,151 Mo. App. 66
• Parties: STALTER v. STALTER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

131 S.W. 747

151 Mo. App. 66

STALTER v. STALTER.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 10, 1910.

1. EQUITY (§ 43) — ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW.

Equity will not afford relief to one who has an adequate remedy at law.

2. JURY (§ 13)—RIGHT TO JURY—LEGAL OR EQUITABLE ACTION.

In an action on a note, the answer alleged that plaintiff owned certain property and furnished defendant a certain sum to expend thereon, for which sum the note was executed by defendant with the understanding that, when the money had been expended, it should be surrendered to defendant, and that the money was so expended, and the prayer was that the note be surrendered and canceled. Held, that the answer was, in legal effect, a plea of payment, and a judgment at law for defendant would have afforded as effective relief as could be granted in equity by canceling the note, so that the answer did not convert the case into an equitable action so as to deprive plaintiff of the right to a jury trial.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Henry L. Bright, Judge.

Action by Mrs. A. L. Stalter against A. L. Stalter. From a decree for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

H. L. Shannon, for appellant. W. J. Owen, for respondent.

COX, J.

Action upon a promissory note for $800. The answer alleges that at the time the note was given defendant and plaintiff were husband and wife; that the plaintiff was the owner of certain property in the city of Carterville, Mo., on which she desired some further improvements to be made; that she furnished to defendant $800 to be expended in improvements upon her property; and that the note was given with the understanding that when the money had been so expended the note was to be surrendered; then alleges that the money was so expended, and asks that the note be required to be surrendered and canceled. The reply was a general denial. At the trial the plaintiff insisted that the issue was one at law, and that she was entitled to trial by jury. The court held that the answer converted the case into an equitable action and denied the plaintiff a jury, heard the testimony, found the issues for the defendant, and entered a decree canceling the note sued upon, and plaintiff has appealed.

The only question to determine here is as to whether the action was converted into an equitable action by the answer of defendant, thus justifying the court in denying the plaintiff a trial by jury.

It is one of the established rules of equity...