Underwood v. Bishop
| Decision Date | 30 April 1878 |
| Citation | 67 Mo. 374 |
| Parties | UNDERWOOD v. BISHOP, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Scotland Circuit Court.
E. R. McKee for plaintiff in error.
This is an ejectment, originally in the name of Pemberton Watson, guardian and curator of the person and estate of John Underwood, an insane person, against Bela G. Bishop. After the answer and replication were filed and the case was ready for trial, leave was granted the plaintiff to amend his petition, so as to make the action in the name of the insane person, by his guardian, &c., instead of by the guardian as plaintiff, in accordance with Reed v. Wilson, 13 Mo. 29. This was by consent allowed to be done by interlineation. The change was made in the caption, but not in the body of the petition, and, of course, the petition was verbally unmeaning, as it read, that the plaintiff, Underwood, was guardian of Underwood, &c.
The case was tried by jury, and a verdict for plaintiff and judgment rendered accordingly. The judgment is entered correctly. The writ of restitution, issued on the judgment, recites it incorrectly, and is copied by the clerk in the record. The certificate of the clerk, however, correctly recites the action and judgment.
When the circuit court, in accordance with plaintiff's motion, ordered the amendment, it is to be regarded here as having been made, and it is immaterial whether the verbal changes are made or not. It is not the business of this court, upon writs of error or appeal, to revise clerical omissions or mistakes, if the substance of what is intended sufficiently appears. The judgment is affirmed.
The other judges concur.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Locke v. Bowman
...that objection it is to be regarded here as having been made, and it is immaterial whether the verbal changes were made or not. [Underwood v. Bishop, 67 Mo. 374; Shantz Shriner, 167 Mo.App. 635, 150 S.W. 727, (Decided October 8, 1912).] The judgment is affirmed and the cause remanded. Reyno......
-
McCollum v. Shubert
...It was not necessary that the amendment be written bodily into the petition. Corrigan & Waters v. Brady, 38 Mo.App. 649, 658; Underwood v. Bishop, 67 Mo. 374, 375; Fischman-Harris Realty Co. v. Kleine, Mo.App., S.W.2d 605, 610. We have examined Texas Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Stewart, Mo.App.......
-
Merrill v. City of St. Louis
...the petition by interlineation or otherwise was necessary, the court having ordered the record to show all that was necessary. Underwood v. Bishop, 67 Mo. 374. (4) The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a continuance. State v. Klinger, 43 Mo. 127; Calhoun v. Crawford, 50 Mo. 458......
-
McCollum v. Shubert
...It was not necessary that the amendment be written bodily into the petition. Corrigan & Waters v. Brady, 38 Mo.App. 649, 658; Underwood v. Bishop, 67 Mo. 374, 375; Fischman-Harris Realty Co. v. Kleine, Mo.App., 82 S.W.2d 605, We have examined Texas Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Stewart, Mo.App., ......