Stauffer v. Stauffer
| Decision Date | 03 December 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 15860.,15860. |
| Citation | 207 S.W. 240,200 Mo. App. 477 |
| Parties | STAUFFER v. STAUFFER. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Thos. C. Hennings, Judge.
Action by John B. Stauffer against Frances A. Stauffer. Judgment for defendant dismissing complaint, and from an order modifying judgment by adding the words "without prejudice," the defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions to set aside the order amending the judgment and to reinstate the original decree dismissing plaintiff's case.
George P. Beck, of St. Louis, for appellant.
James M. Rollins, E. A. Halter, and Rudolph Schneider, all of St. Louis, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought his action for divorce. A trial was had before the court at the February, 1917, term thereof, and at its conclusion the cause was submitted upon the pleadings, evidence) and proof adduced, and the court took time to consider it. Thereafter, and during the same term, the court rendered this decree, namely:
"This cause having been tried by the court on the 12th day of February, 1917, and having on said last mentioned date been by the parties hereto submitted to the court, upon the pleadings and the evidence, * * * and the court being now fully advised in the premises, doth find that the plaintiff is not an innocent and injured party and is not entitled to the relief prayed for in his amended petition; wherefore it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the plaintiff's bill herein be, and the same is, hereby dismissed, at the cost of said plaintiff, for which let execution issue."
In due time plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, alleging newly discovered evidence as well as other matters of alleged error. Plaintiff filed several affidavits in support of his allegation of newly discovered evidence, the defendant resisting the motion and also filing affidavits.
It would appear that this motion was continued to the April term of the court. At that term the court, without any motion to that effect, modified its judgment by adding to it, after the judgment dismissing plaintiff's bill, the words, "without prejudice," and overruled the plaintiff's motion for new trial. Defendant in due time filed her motion to set aside the above order. That motion was overruled, defendant excepting and duly appealing.
The action of the learned trial court in modifying its order and judgment previously made by entering in it that plaintiff's petition or bill was dismissed "without prejudice," cannot be sustained; this whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suess v. Motz
... ... dismiss a suit after submission of the cause to the jury. R ... S. 1919, sec. 1410; State ex rel. Motz v. Killoren, ... 271 S.W. 544; Stauffer v. Stauffer, 200 Mo.App. 477, ... 207 S.W. 240; McCauley v. Brown, 99 Mo.App. 625, 74 ... S.W. 464; State ex rel. Bakery Company v. Anderson, ... ...
- Stauffer v. Stauffer
-
Thompson v. Wendling.
...had been rendered therein against them, they were not entitled to take a nonsuit. Section 1980, Rev. Stat. 1909; Stauffer v. Stauffer, 200 Mo. App. 477, 207 S. W. 240. And in Lawyers' Co-operative Publishing Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139, 73 S. W. 155, it was pointedly held by our Supreme Cour......
-
Landau v. Ohio Leather Company, a Corp.
... ... submission of the case. [See Lawyers' Co-operative ... Publishing Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139, 73 S.W. 155; ... Stauffer v. Stauffer, 200 (Mo. App. 477, 200 Mo.App ... 477, 207 S.W. 240; Thompson et al. v. Wendling, No ... 15582, recently decided by this court but ... ...