Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 Mo. 72

Saline County v. Sappington

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1876

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1876-10-15

<p>1. Practice, civil — Contract—Omission of seal. — Prayer for reformation — Demurrer —An instrument in the form of a bond is good as a contract and constitutes a good cause of action at common law although without seal. And no necessity existing for its reformntion to make it such, the fact that the plaintiff’s petition prays for reformntion of the instrument, so as to make it a specialty, will not warrant a demurrer.</p> <p>2. Practice, civil — Prayer for relief not a distinct cause of action. — A prayer for relief does not constitute a distinct cause of action, but only seeks a particular remedy and is not demurrable.</p>

Relies on Henoch v. Chaney · McClurg v. Phillips

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1953

5 state decisions

10187618801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Sherwood, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Action on an instrument executed by Sappington, as treasurer of Saline county, and by the other defendants as his sureties. The instrument was, not a bond in consequence of lacking the word seals ” in the body thereof.

¶3Breaches were set out, reformation of the instrument so as to .make it a specialty, and judgment for the penalty and execution, etc., were asked for. The defendants successfully demurred. There was no insufficiency in the petition. A mere prayer for relief is hot demurrable. The instrument sued on was well enough without a seal; was good as a common law contract, made on adequate consideration, (Henoch vs. Chaney, 61 Mo. 129) therefore no necessity existed for reformation, and the prayer therefor may be rejected as surplusage. The mere prayer for relief does not constitute a distinct cause of action, but only seeks a particular remedy. (McClurg vs. Phillips, 49 Mo. 315.)

¶4Judgment reversed, and cause remanded;

/64/mo/72 · .json · Public domain