Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Mo. App. 38

Bombeck v. Devorss

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 26, 1885

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1885-10-26

Joseph P. Crubb, Judge. Statement of case by the court. On the fourth day of March, 1876, a petition was filed with the clerk of the circuit court in the case of Daniel F. Bombeck v. William Devorss. As to that petition the record in this case shows only this. The petition itself is not in this record. On the nineteenth day of January, 1877, Daniel F. Bombeck filed an amended petition, making William Devorss, Jefferson B. Baker and Eli Moore co-defendants.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1885-10-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1941

9 state decisions

301885189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1I.

Hall, J.

¶2The trial court properly dismissed the case as to defendant Devorss, for the third reason set out in Devorss’ motion.

¶3This action could not be maintained against Devorss, the owner of the building, without Baker and Moore, *41with whom plaintiff had his contract, being made parties defendant.

¶4Section 3180 of the Revised Statutes provides that “in all suits under this article the parties to the contract shall … be made parties …

¶5By section 3187 of the Revised Statutes it is provided that all such actions shall be brought within ninety days after filing the lien.

¶6By filing the petition against Devorss alone the plaintiff did not institute a suit against Devorss and Baker and Moore. The suit against Devorss and Baker and Moore should have been commenced within ninety days after the filing of the lien ; and as' that suit was commenced by the filing of the amended petition it was not commenced in the required time.

¶7II.

¶8The court properly refused to permit the plaintiff to introduce any evidence against defendants, Baker and Moore. No personal service was had upon them or either of them. Service by publication only was had upon them. Under such circumstances the court had no power to render judgment, against them. Section 3184 of Revised Statutes.

¶9The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.
/19/moapp/38 · .json · Public domain