Bowling v. McFarland
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- American Clay Machinery Co. v. Sedalia Brick & Tile Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1913)
- Keator v. Helfenstein Park Realty Co. (Mo. 1910)
- Hanks v. Hanks (Mo. 1909)
- A. C. L. Haase & Sons Fish Co. v. Merchants' Despatch Transportation Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
- Dunlap v. Kelly (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
- Reed Bros. v. Nicholson (Mo. 1900)
- Pharis v. Surrett (Mo. Ct. App. 1893)
- C. Aultman & Co. v. Siglinger (S.D. 1892)
- Vaughan v. Daniels (Mo. 1889)
- Staley House Furnishing Co. v. Wallace (Mo. Ct. App. 1886)
- Johnson' v. Home Ins. Co. (Wyo. 1885)
- Kern v. South St. Louis Mutual Insurance (Mo. 1867)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The cause of action was founded upon a written instrument, of which a copy was filed with the petition ; but the petition did not state the terms and substance of the contract. It has been already decided that in determining the sufficiency of the petition, the averments contained in it can alone be considered; and that the instrument filed as an exhibit constitutes no part of the petition—Baker v. Berry, 37 Mo. 306 ; Curry v. Lackey, 35 Mo. 392. The forms contained in the Practice Act of 1849 were a part of the statutes, but the forms recommended by the editor of the Revised Statutes of 1855 have not the sanction of legislative enactment. The petition was clearly bad on demurrer, or on motion in arrest of judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.