Sublett v. Nelson
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Parties | PHILIP C. SUBLETT, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN F. NELSON, ADM'R, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Marion Circuit Court.
Dryden & Lindley, with H. S. Lipscomb, for plaintiff in error.
I. County courts are required to hear and determine demands against decedent's estates in a summary way, without the form of pleadings (§ 18, p. 155, R. C. 1855); and the Circuit Court, in the trial of such cases on appeal, is governed by the same rules of evidence and procedure as those governing the County Court. In such cases the decision, as well in the one court as the other, is upon the case made by the evidence, and not upon that made by the complaint.
II. Actions founded on judgments rendered in this State are not barred by the provisions of the statute of limitations of 1855--Manning v. Hogan, 26 Mo. 574.
This was a proceeding originally commenced in the Marion County Court to have a demand allowed and classed against the estate of the defendant intestate. The demand was founded on a judgment rendered before a justice of the peace in favor of the plaintiff and one C. R. Magee, who were co-partners at the time the judgment was obtained; but, before the presentation of the demand for allowance and classification in the County Court, Magee sold, transferred and assigned his share in the judgment to the plaintiff, who was the sole and exclusive owner thereof. The complaint filed in the County Court charged the estate to amount of judgment rendered before the justice of the peace in favor of plaintiff. The judgment was rendered more than ten years but less than twenty before it was presented to the court for allowance. The County Court gave judgment for the defendant on the ground that the demand was barred by the statute of limitations. On an appeal being taken, the Circuit Court gave two instructions for the defendant and then found in his behalf. These instructions constitute the error complained of, and are in substance--
1. That admitting that plaintiff and Magee had a judgment, and that Magee assigned his interest therein to plaintiff, it would not be evidence sufficient to support the allegation of the plaintiff of a judgment in his favor alone against the defendant's intestate.
2. That more than ten years having elapsed from the date of the rendition of the judgment before the suit was instituted in the County Court, the same was barred by the statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meffert v. Lawson
...general issue (21 R. C. L. sec. 122, bot. p. 563), which amounts to a denial of every material allegation of fact in the demand (Sublette v. Nelson, 38 Mo. 487; Smith Collins, 243 S.W. (Mo. App.) 219). The statute dispensing with formal pleadings renders the proceedings in probate courts as......
-
Meffert v. Lawson
...the general issue (21 R. C. L. § 122, p. 563), which amounts to a denial of every material allegation of fact in the demand (Sublett v. Nelson, 38 Mo. 487; Smith v. Collins (Mo. App.) 243 S. W. 219). The statute dispensing with formal pleadings renders the proceedings in probate courts as t......
-
In re Means' Estate
...formal pleadings. Wencker v. Thompson's Adm'r, 96 Mo. App. 59, 69 S. W. 743; Razzieur v. Zimmer, 249 Mo. 175, 155 S. W. 24; Sublett v. Nelson, Adm'r, 38 Mo. 487. We are of the opinion the same rule would apply in a suit of this kind, where the ultimate end to be attained is the payment of a......
-
Rassieur v. Zimmer
...such form as to unmistakably disclose the nature of the transaction which gave rise to it, it is sufficient. Sec. 206, R.S. 1909; Sublett v. Nelson, 38 Mo. 488; Watkins v. Donnelly, 88 Mo. 323; Bronze Co. Doty, 99 Mo.App. 195; Christianson v. McDermott, 123 Mo.App. 448. (3) Defendant having......