Clark v. Hughes
Clark v. Hughes
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff as receiver of a foreign insurance company sued the defendant for $55.30, alleged to be due from him as a member of the association by virtue of an assessment made in pursuance of its laws.
“1. The court, sitting as a jury, declares the law to be that the plaintiff being a foreign receiver ap-' pointed by the court of Illinois, has no right to maintain this cause of action in this state.
“2. The court declares the law to be that under all the evidence introduced in the case, plaintiff is not entitled to recover.”
The bill of exceptions shows that no objections or exceptions were taken at the time the above declarations of law were given, nor were any declarations asked or given on behalf of plaintiff. Judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.
The learned counsel for appellant assigns the giving of the above declarations of law as error. We are debarred from passing upon this assignment on account of the failure of the bill of exceptions to show that any objection or exception was made to the declarations of law at the time they were given by the court. Shannon v. R’y, 54 Mo. App. 223, and citations. If they were open to review, we should be inclined, to hold that the first was a correct statement of the general rule on that subject as announced by the supreme court of this state. Robertson v. Staed, 135 Mo. 135, and citations. But we would have been compelled to hold that it should not have been given in the case on trial, since the record discloses that plaintiff’s authority to sue as a foreign receiver was fully set out on the face of the petition, and should therefore have
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.