Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Mo. 396

Heltzell v. Langford

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1863

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1863-03-15

Louis Law Commissioner’s Court. This was a cause wherein plaintiff sues the defendants Lang-ford By the evidence it appears that one Coleman, a sub-contractor, first got the goods and chattels from plaintiff, and the point made by appellant that he (Coleman) should have been joined as a co-defendant is not tenable. The statutory defendants being joined, is sufficient for the plaintiff to maintain his suit.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The act provides that in all suits under it ‘the petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing the lien.’ One of the requisite facts is that the creditor shall, within a time limited, file an account of his demand in the proper office. The time of filing is a material issuable fact, which must be alleged and without which the petition will not show a cause of action. It is not enough to aver the filing of the demand without an averment of the time when * *”

quoted by 1 later decision, including George F. Robertson Plastering Co. v. Altman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-03-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1968

6 state decisions

3018631870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Dryden, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This action was brought under the lien law specially applicable to St. Louis county. (Sess. Acts, 1856-7, pp. 668-9.)

¶3The act provides that in all suits under it “the petition, among other things, shall allege the facts necessary for securing the lien.” One of the requisite facts is that the creditor shall, within a time limited, file an account of his demand in the proper office. The time of filing is a material, issuable fact, which must be alleged and without which the petition will not show a cause of action. It is not enough to aver the filing of the demand without an averment of the time when ; for a filing at the wrong time is as inefficacious as if not filed at all. The petition should therefore show the time when the account was filed, so that the court may see and pronounce the judgment of the law that a cause of action exists, and that the defendant may have an opportunity of taking issue upon the fact material to the plaintiff’s right.

¶4In this case there is a total omission to show in the petition when the account was filed, as well as the time when the indebtedness accrued; and for this cause the petition is fatally defective, and the motion in arrest ought to have been sustained.

¶5As the case will have to go back and the plaintiff amend his petition, we would suggest in view of what was disclosed by the evidence on the trial, whether Coleman, the witness, is not the real debtor of the plaintiff, and therefore a necessary party defendant.

¶6There were other questions raised in the case, but which it is not necessary should be decided now.

With the concurrence of the other judges,

¶7the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with leave to the plaintiff to amend his petition.

/33/mo/396 · .json · Public domain