Tamm v. Ford Motor Co.
Decision Date | 08 January 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 10335.,10335. |
Citation | 80 F.2d 723 |
Parties | TAMM v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. H. McVey, of Kansas City, Mo. (C. A. Randolph, Spurgeon L. Smithson, and Stanley Garrity, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
John G. Madden, of Kansas City, Mo. (James E. Burke and Madden, Freeman & Madden, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH, and FARIS, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, appellant herein, as trustee in bankruptcy of Herb Ford, Inc., sued defendant in an action at law for damages. The trial court sustained a demurrer to his third amended petition. He declined to plead further, and thereupon the court rendered a final judgment against him, and he appealed.
Plaintiff (for we shall for clarity refer to the parties as they stood below) filed four petitions in the case. All of these, though three of them constitute abandoned pleadings, he has seen fit to incorporate in the record before us. Two of these petitions were voluntarily abandoned. To the third in point of time of filing, a demurrer was sustained by the trial court. Thereupon plaintiff filed his third amended petition; again a demurrer thereto was filed and sustained. There were five grounds alleged in the demurrer. The order sustaining the demurrer is a general one and does not disclose the particular reason or reasons for which the court nisi deemed the petition bad or insufficient.
We have had the very greatest difficulty in ascertaining whether the third amended petition is an action ex delicto, or ex contractu. In many aspects it has features allocating it to the category of a breach of contract, as also those which should place it among actions for a tort, to wit, fraud and deceit. In this dilemma, it is permissible and proper to adopt the legal characterization of plaintiff himself, who we think plainly allocates it among actions ex delicto. For he characterizes it in his brief thus: "This is an action at law, brought by Albert Tamm, Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Herb Ford, Inc., (a Missouri Corporation), against the Ford Motor Company, a Michigan Corporation for damages arising out of certain false statements and inducing misrepresentations of defendant."
Candor and "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," no doubt require that as much of the petition, held had below should be set forth, as shall serve to make plain the nature of the action, and to illustrate the successful attack made in, and sustained by the trial court, on its sufficiency. Such salient parts thereof read thus:
Of the five grounds of demurrer, in the view we are constrained to take of the case, only three need be mentioned. These are: (a) "That plaintiff does not have legal capacity to sue; (b) that several causes of action have been improperly united; and (c) that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant." All three of the above grounds of demurrer are warranted by the statute of Missouri (section 770, R.S. of Missouri 1929 Mo.St. Ann. § 770, p. 1000), which in matters of practice and procedure in actions at law controls a federal court, and constitutes the legal test of goodness, vel non of the petition under discussion. Ward v. Morrow (C.C.A.) 15 F.(2d) 660; Slocum v. Erie Railroad Co. (D.C.) ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reichert v. General Ins. Co. of America
...in the trustee under section 70, subdivision (a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 110, subd. (a)(6)), citing Tamm v. Ford Motor Co. (8th Cir. 1935) 80 F.2d 723. We cannot see how Wooten assists plaintiff since the nature of the claim there asserted is fundamentally different from tha......
-
Hilderbrand v. Anderson
...v. Shelton & Lane, 41 Mo.App. 147, 155-156(1); Peitzman v. City of Illmo, supra, 141 F.2d loc. cit. 961(10); Tamm v. Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir., 80 F.2d 723, 729(6).8 State ex rel. Fechtling v. Rose, 239 Mo.App. 178, 189 S.W.2d 425, 428(4); O'Neil v. O'Neil, Mo.App., 264 S.W. 61, 66(13); State ......
-
Messina v. Greubel
... ... 1046, 151 S.W.2d 1112; Remmers v. Remmers, 217 Mo ... 541, 117 S.W. 1117; Tamm v. Ford Motor Co., 80 F.2d ... 723. (2) Where one party to a transaction makes certain ... ...
-
Kansas City v. Rathford
... ... estate of William D. Boyle. Plummer v. Ford, 208 ... S.W. 489; Trower v. M., K. & T.R. Co., 149 S.W.2d ... 792; Guthrie v. City of St ... Weitzman, 156 S.W.2d ... 906; Menke v. Rovin, 180 S.W.2d 24; Tamm v. Ford ... Motor Co., 80 F.2d 723; Dubinsky Realty Co. v ... Lortz, 129 F.2d 669. (4) ... ...