Thompson v. Union Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 77 Mo. 520 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. THE UNION ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.--HON. S. H. WOODSON, Judge.
REVERSED.
The release was as follows:
“Know all men by these presents, that I, Charles Thompson, in consideration of the sum of $250 to me in hand paid by the Union Elevator Company, do hereby release and forever discharge the said elevator company, its successors and assigns, of and from all actions, causes of action, controversies, claims, damages and demands whatsoever for or by reason of an injury received by me by falling from the scaffolding in the elevator of said company at Kansas City aforesaid, on the 29th day of November, 1875, and to recover damages for which an action is now pending in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, at Kansas City, brought by me as plaintiff against said elevator company as defendant; and I hereby authorize the dismissal of said suit.”
Pratt, Brumback & Ferry for appellant.
Amos H. Kagy for respondent.
The only question involved in this case is whether the lower court erred in rendering a judgment against the defendant for costs. It is a suit by plaintiff against defendant for damages for a personal injury. The answer of the defendant contained a denial of all the allegations of the petition, and a plea of release. There was a mistrial at the October term, 1878, of the Jackson circuit court, and on the 11th day of November, following, plaintiff executed a release to the defendant of all claim for damages for said injury, and on the 13th day of November, the defendant filed an amended answer, pleading said release in bar of the further prosecution of the suit. The plaintiff replied, denying the execution of the release, and on a trial the issue was found against him, and the court rendered a general judgment against him, but adjudged the costs which had accrued in the cause, at the date of the filing of the amended answer, against defendant, and from this judgment defendant appeals.
At common law, plaintiff was in no case entitled to recover costs. Steel v. Wear, 54 Mo. 532. In this State the matter of costs is regulated by statute, which is to be strictly construed. Shea v. K. C., St. Jo. & C. B. R. R. Co., 67 Mo. 687; Gordon v. Maupin, 10 Mo. 352. Section 990, Revised Statutes 1879, provides that “In all civil actions, or proceedings of any kind, the party prevailing shall recover his costs against the other party, except in those cases in which a different provision is made by law.” This has reference to the final determination of the cause, and to costs not then previously taxed. In Hart v. Fitzgerald, 2 Mass. 509, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mangold v. Bacon
... ... the lien of the State was exhausted and satisfied when the ... taxes were paid ( Thompson v. Elevator Co., 77 Mo ... 520), and there was no lien left to foreclose. Looked at from ... ...
-
Mangold v. Bacon
...conclusion is somewhat fortified by the fact that the lien of the state was exhausted and satisfied when the taxes were paid (Thompson v. Elevator Co., 77 Mo. 520), and there was no lien left to Looked at from the standpoint of mere costs in the circuit court, that should be dealt with on t......
-
Mangold v. Bacon
... ... could not thereafter be foreclosed. [Thompson v. Elevator ... Co., 77 Mo. 520.] Those officers to whom the costs were due ... had no locus ... ...
-
Myton v. The Fidelity & Casualty Company
... ... 108-114; Harness v. Green, 19 Mo. 323; Murphy v ... Smith, 86 Mo. 339; Thompson v. Elevator Co., 77 ... Mo. 522. (2) Appellant is not a stranger to the judgment ... which it now ... ...