50 Mo. 142 | Mo. | 1872
delivered the opinion of the court.
The petition, after the title and venue, commences as follows: “Plaintiff states that defendant owes him $317 for work done
The issue upon which the trial was had was really tendered by the defendant. He admitted that the plaintiff worked for him, though the fact was but defectively alleged, and charged unskillfulness in its performance. Upon a denial of this charge the jury rendered their verdict. Now it is altogether unconscionable to permit him to arrest the judgment because the charge, which he admitted in full, was defectively laid.
When we say that a judgment should be arrested if the petition fails to show a cause of action, we speak of substantial and not of foimal omissions. The latter are supplied by intendment, and will be presumed after verdict to have been proved. But when the petition shows. that the plaintiff has no cause of action, then a verdict should be treated as a nullity, and it would be error to render judgment upon it. The judgment is the sentence of the law upon the facts proved or admitted, and when the pleadings show that a judgment should not be rendered upon the facts as set out, it should be arrested. But if the defeats are merely of omission, and if, when supplied, a complete case would be made, the omission being of facts which the jury must have found, then the judgment is a legitimate sentence of the law.
In this pleading the account is made a part of the petition, being embodied in it instead of being filed with it; and even if
The judgment in arrest is reversed and the cause remanded.