Steinbruegge v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
| Decision Date | 16 January 1917 |
| Parties | ANNIE STEINBRUEGGE, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Original Opinion of December 30, 1916 and January 16, 1917, Reported at: 196 Mo.App. 194.
December 30, 1916;
Motion for rehearing overruled.
OPINIONON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Respondent insists that in our opinion filed herein we inadvertently overlooked the fact "that the petition before the court for consideration in this case is not a statement filed in the justice court but an amended petition filed in the circuit court after appeal from the justice court."
It is true that the statement or petition which we had under consideration was not the original statement filed before the justice of the peace, but was an "amended petition" filed by plaintiff after the case reached the circuit court. We did not overlook this, but deemed it unnecessary to state that where an action originates before a justice of the peace, and is appealed to the circuit court, the sufficiency of an amended statement or petition in the circuit court is to be determined by the requirements of the law applicable to statements filed before justices of the peace. [See Conn Company v. Orr, et al., 150 Mo.App. 705, 131 S.W. 765.] When a case is appealed from a justice of the peace to the circuit court the general rules of practice in the latter court govern, but not the rules of pleading applicable to causes originating therein. [See Wendleton v. Kingery, 110 Mo.App. 67, 84 S.W. 102.] As to matters of pleading the case remains one wherein no formal pleadings are required, and the rule is not altered by the fact that an amended statement is filed in the circuit court.
With the concurrence of the other judges, the motion for a rehearing is overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial