State v. Meyers
| Decision Date | 08 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 20924.,No. 20921.,20921.,20924. |
| Citation | 26 S.W.2d 816 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HOGAN v. MEYERS, Justice of the Peace (two cases). |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Certiorari proceedings by the State, on the relation of Thomas F. Hogan, to review certain judgments entered by Harry C. Meyers, Justice of the Peace of the Fifth District No. 2 of the City of St. Louis, in favor of William A. Deichmann and another and against the relator. The circuit court held the judgments void, and the justice appeals.
Judgment of circuit court affirmed.
Harry C. Willson and Thomas O. Stokes, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Igoe, Carroll, Higgs & Keefe, of St. Louis, for respondent.
These cases involve appeals by the respondent holding void, upon certiorari, two judgments entered by him in favor of William A. Deichmann and Margaret Deichmann against Thomas F. Hogan. The appeals involved two separate cases in which identical issues are raised and by agreement of the parties they were heard and briefed together. The only difference in the facts relating to the two cases is that in the one cause the sum of money named in the summons issued out of the court of the justice of the peace is set forth as being $250 while the judgment entered in that case was for $365 and costs, while in the other case the amount stated in the summons is $185 and judgment was for $375 and costs.
In his return to the writ of certiorari in case No. 173 for March, 1928, the docket entry of the justice of the peace shows that the demand was for $250 and the summons, which forms part of his record, discloses also that the plaintiff demanded $250 and interest while the default judgment entered in favor of plaintiff was for $365.
The return to the writ of certiorari in case No. 174 for February, 1928, discloses that the docket entry is upon a demand for $185, that the summons issued discloses the same thing, while the judgment actually entered is for $375.
Section 2733, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1919, provides that when a suit is instituted before a justice other than by voluntary appearance the process shall be either a summons or an attachment against the property of the defendant and in that event shall be deemed commenced upon delivery of the writ to the constable to be served.
Section 2743, after providing to what constable the summons shall be directed and the time for the defendant to appear, provides that it shall require the defendant "to answer the complaint of the plaintiff, stating also the nature of the suit and the sum demanded."
In the case of Hill v. St. Louis Ore & Steel Co., 90 Mo. 103, 2 S. W. 289, a suit was instituted in a justice of the peace court upon a statement showing a demand for $37.50 covering a board bill of certain parties named in the statement filed with the justice, while the summons simply recited that the defendant was to answer the complaint of the plaintiff demanding $37.90 and it was held that the summons, failing to disclose the nature of the suit, was fatally defective.
In the case of B. Adler & Co. v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 110 Mo. App. 339, 85 S. W. 948, 949, suit was instituted in the justice court for goods sold and delivered on an ordinary billhead of plaintiff, while on the back thereof was indorsed, "Damages for injury to goods in transit as per statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Stockton
... ... P-1 for the reasons set out in point 1, ... supra. (3) A special and preclusive statute takes precedence ... over a general statute. State v. Showers, 34 Kansas, ... 269, 272; Williamson v. Thom., 194 Mo.App. 173. (a) ... And our Landlord and Tenant Act (Secs. 2573 to 2628, Mo ... record. Warden v. Ry. Co., 78 Mo.App. 664, 666; ... Patchen v. Durrett, 116 Mo.App. 437, 440; State ... v. Meyers, 26 S.W.2d 816, and (b) That no intendments ... may be allowed in justice courts. State v. Hobbs, ... 218 Mo.App. 448, 456; Martindale v. Hall, 132 ... ...
-
Universal Credit Co. v. Axtell
...132 Mo.App. 297; 35 Corpus Juris, page 548; Isbell v. Kenyon-Warner Dredging Co., 261 S.W. 762; State v. Galloway, 24 S.W.2d 710; State v. Meyers, 26 S.W.2d 816. Defendant's "Motion to Set Aside Judgment" was the proper method of attack for error apparent on face of record. Section 1101, R.......
-
Schaefer v. Magel's Estate
... ... offered in support of respondent's motion, the Court ... should have overruled the same. Authorities, supra; State ... ex rel. Dean v. Daues, 321 Mo. 1126, 15 S.W.2d 990. (3) ... Appellant should have been permitted to traverse the ... allegations of said ... on the record of the court. Vittert v. Melton, 78 ... S.W.2d 467; State ex rel. Hogan v. Meyers, 26 S.W.2d ... 816; Deichmann v. Hogan, 26 S.W.2d 874; State ex ... rel. Shaw State Bank v. Pfeffle, 220 Mo.App. 676, 293 ... S.W. 512. (4) ... ...
-
Pfitzinger v. Johnson
... ... Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County; Julius R. Nolte, Judge ... "Not to be reported in State Reports." ... Proceeding in mandamus by Godwin Pfitzinger against Walter L. Johnson and others, composing the Board of Education of ... Statute, Section 2571, supra; State ex rel. Alisky v. Bird, supra; Martone v. Bryan, 233 Mo.App. 1249, 130 S.W.2d 962; State ex rel. Hogan v. Meyers, Mo.App., 26 S.W.2d 816; State ex rel. Shaw State Bank v. Pfeffle, 220 Mo. App. 676, 293 S.W. 512; Olin v. Zeigler, 46 Mo.App. 193 ... ...