Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

36 Mo. 47

Harkness v. Austin

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1865

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1865-07-15

Irregularity is the want of adherence to some prescribed rule or mode of proceeding, and consists in omitting to do something that is necessary for the due and orderly conducting of a suit, or doing it in an unreasonable time or improper manner. (34 Mo. 318.) The proceedings to obtain the judgment in the name of Harkness, administrator of Dysart, against Austin & King, were irregular.

Relies on Fine v. Gray · Ferris' Administrator v. Hunt

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1933

12 state decisions

4018651870188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Wagner, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2It appears from the record in this cause, that one Dysart commenced his suit in the probate and Common Pleas Court of Greene county, returnable to the May term, 1861, at *48which time appellant filed his answer and the cause was continued.

¶3At the November term, 1862, the death of Dysart was suggested, and the court made an order reviving the suit in the name of Harkness, administrator, and permitting his name to be substituted on the record as plaintiff, and then gave judgment. The appellant did not appear in court at that term. At the May term, 1865, of said court, appellant appeared and filed his motion to set aside the judgment on the ground that it was irregular, which was by the court overruled. Section 33 of the Practice Act, R. C. 1855, p. 1277, provides that “All orders made for the purpose of substituting any person as plaintiff or defendant, in place of the original defendant or plaintiff, shall be made either upon the voluntary appearance of the. adverse original party, or after the service upon such party of a summons, as hereinbefore described.” A party may always be substituted by motion in accordance with the above section, but it must be done on the voluntary appearance of the adverse original party. If he does not so appear, then he must be brought in by summons in the manner prescribed by law.

¶4The record here shows there was no appearance, and no steps taken to bring the party into court in a legal form. As the law does not precisely define the manner in which the opposite party is to be brought in when a substitution is made, this court has decided that it must be done by scire facias, according to the sixteenth section of the Practice Act of 1845, which still remains unrepealed. (Ferris v. Hunt, 18 Mo. 480; Fine v. Gray, 19 Mo. 33.) The statute (R. C. 1855, p. 1290, § 26) gives a party three years in which to move to set aside a judgment for irregularity rendered in a court of record. The motion was in time, and the judgment being manifestly irregular, ought to have been sustained.

The other judges concurring,

¶5the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

/36/mo/47 · .json · Public domain