Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Mo. 362

Pope v. Salsman

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1865

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1865-01-15

26, in township No. 39, of range No. 15, and one Scott Strong being the owner of the north-east quarter of the south-east quarter of the above described section, township and range, they, the said Salsman and Strong, erected a mill and mill dam on the above described lands; the mill buildings being erected on the land of Salsman and the mill dam on both of the above described tracts, but mainly on the land of Strong.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1910

5 state decisions

20186518701880189019001910decided

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.

¶2In this case the respondent recovered judgment for three hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-nine cents, whereas he demanded in his petition only one hundred dollars. *366This was error apparent on the record, for which the judgment must be reversed. Furthermore, we think the amended petition on which the case was tried is clearly bad, in that it contains the statement of no cause of action; and not for the reason argued by the plaintiff in error, that the cause of action stated in it is a different one from that stated in the original petition. If the purpose of the proceeding be the settlement of partnership accounts between the parties, the amended petition is deficient not only in not showing the existence of a partnership, but in not containing any statement of the partnership account by the plaintiff, or in not asking a statement by the defendant.

¶3Viewed as a proceeding by one tenant in common for an account of the rents and profits against his co-tenant, the petition is defective in not showing what the rents and profits were, nor that the defendant (plaintiff in error) had received any rents or profits. As the case must go back, we suggest to the respondent the propriety of further amending his petition on such terms as the Circuit Court may deem just, so as to state a cause of actio^ if any he has.

¶4Let the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
/35/mo/362 · .json · Public domain