(DOWNLOAD) "Cecil M. Hamm v. Donald M. Hamm" by Springfield District Missouri Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Cecil M. Hamm v. Donald M. Hamm
- Author : Springfield District Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 07, 1969
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
In a court-tried case conducted in the absence of defendant Donald M. Hamm (Donald) and after his attorney, John R. Miller
(Miller), had withdrawn, the Circuit Court of Barton County entered a $1,250 judgment against Donald on Count III of plaintiff's
first amended petition. Donald appeals "from the judgment entered against him in this action on the 5th day of April, 1968,
and from the court's order entered July 9, 1968, overruling said defendant's Motion for New Trial." Plaintiff's original petition named as defendants his son Donald, his former wife, Helen M. Robinson (Helen), and Helen's
then husband, Carl B. Robinson (Carl). The three defendants were represented by attorney Miller. Plaintiff asseverated that
he and Helen had conveyed two lots (Lots 6 and 7) to Donald and that Donald, in violation of his written agreement to reconvey
the lots upon request, had wrongfully transferred them to Carl. In Count I plaintiff asked the court to cancel Donald's deed
to Carl and require Donald to deed the lots to plaintiff and Helen as tenants in common, or, if Donald refused, to decree
plaintiff and Helen to be the owners of Lots 6 and 7. Count II sought partition of eight lots (including Lots 6 and 7) owned
by plaintiff and Helen. Except as to Lots 6 and 7, defendants' answer admitted Count II; as to Count I, defendants asserted
that the conveyance from plaintiff and Helen to Donald was a bona fide transaction for value free of any valid agreement
to reconvey, and that Carl was the rightful owner of Lots 6 and 7. Thereafter, on August 5, 1967, plaintiff's first amended
petition was filed in identical language as the original pleading save for the addition of Count III, wherein plaintiff asked
a $1,250 judgment against Donald (representing one-half the alleged value of Lots 6 and 7) in the event he was unsuccessful
with Count I. Miller, as attorney of record for defendants, was served with a copy of the amended petition and answered for
his clients. None of the defendants was personally served with a copy of the amended pleading.