Thompson v. Bronson
| Decision Date | 21 April 1885 |
| Citation | 17 Mo.App. 456 |
| Parties | ELIAS THOMPSON, Respondent, v. MELVIN BRONSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Knox County County Circuit Court, TURNER, J.
Reversed and dismissed.
O. D. JONES, for the appellant: The court had no jurisdiction.--Rev. stats. sect. 3481; Bank v. Knox, 47 Mo. 333; Graham v. Ringo, 67 Mo. 324. A plea to the jurisdiction and an answer to the merits may be joined.-- Byler v. Jones, 79 Mo. 261.
W. C. HOLLISTER, for the respondent.
The first point arising upon this record, which we are called upon to consider, is whether the court below had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant.
It is an action of claim and delivery of personal property, instituted in Knox county, and the answer of defendant, among other defences, contains a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, stating, that at the time when the suit was commenced, the plaintiff and all the defendants were not residents of Knox county, but of Lewis county in this state.
It appears by the sheriff's return, and by the uncontroverted testimony, that the property replevied, was at the date of the institution of the suit in Knox County, and that the defendant Bronson, the only defendant served, was in possession of the property, and was served in Knox County, It also appears, however, by the testimony of the plaintiff, that neither himself nor any of the defendants was at said date a resident of Knox county, but all were residents of the county of Lewis.
It is settled in this state now, that a plea to the jurisdiction of the court may be properly joined with a plea to the merits in the same answer.-- Byler v. Jones, 79 Mo. 261. In fact all pleas in abatement, except in attachment suits wherein separate pleas in abatement are specially authorized, may be joined in the same answer with pleas to the merits, and are not waived by the joinder.-- Little v. Harrington, 71 Mo. 391.
As the facts upon which the want of jurisdiction of the trial court depended, did not in the case at bar appear upon the face of the petition, the plea to the jurisdiction, if justified by the facts, was properly made by answer. The objection being thus made it became the duty of the court to dismiss the suit, if upon the uncontroverted facts it appeared as a matter of law that it had no jurisdiction of defendant's person. The question for our consideration therefore, is, whether the action was properly brought in Knox County, it being conceded by the testimony, that both plaintiff and defendant, though residents of this state, were non-residents...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbia Brewery Co. v. Forgey
... ... indeed, as has been decided in numerous cases. [Peery v ... Harper, 42 Mo. 131; Thompson v. Bronson, 17 ... Mo.App. 456; Brackett v. Brackett, 61 Mo. 221.] ... There was an appearance by defendant touching the merits, ... however, and ... ...
-
Columbia Brewery Co. v. Forgey
...entire case, the ruling would have been proper, indeed, as has been decided in numerous cases. Peery v. Harper, 42 Mo. 131; Thompson v. Bronson, 17 Mo. App. 456; Brackett v. Brackett, 61 Mo. 221. There was an appearance by defendant touching the merits, however, and this fact invokes a rule......
-
Yoakum v. Davis
...would be given under the provisions of the attachment statute applicable to justices, as set out in sections 7646-7649. In Thompson v. Bronson, 17 Mo.App. 456, an action in the circuit court, it was held that where both plaintiff and defendant were non-residents of the county in which the p......
-
Foster v. Wulfing
...Mo. App. 39; The State v. Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 274; Birtwhistle v. Woodward, 17 Mo. App. 277; Tobin v. McCann, 17 Mo. App. 481; Thompson v. Bronson, 17 Mo. App. 456; The State v. Fuchs, 17 Mo. App. 458; The State v. Fayette, 17 Mo. App. 587; Rubleman v. Greve, 18 Mo. App. 6; Hollander v. Kæt......