absence of any claim in Missouri

1998Id. at 888 ; see also Pierson, 409 S.W.2d at 131 (enforcing parties’ stipulation that a pending counterclaim would not be affected by the dismissal of the petition because the defendant had “expressly reserved” the right to continue the counterclaim).

1967It has also been stated that “[a] stipulation should be interpreted in view of the result which the parties were attempting to accomplish” and that “ [stipulations varying or altering trial procedure, or waiving the benefit of procedural statutes, have been consistently enforced by our courts in the absence of any claim of fraud, duress or mistake * * Landers v. Smith, Mo.App., 379 S.W.2d 884, 888 .

2025In Moore v. Missouri Highway & Transportation Commission, 169 S.W.3d 595 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005), the Southern District reversed a trial court's dismissal of a petition for failure to state a claim where the petition 12 enumerated several features which caused a curve on a highway to be a dangerous condition, compounded by the absence of any warning signs, holding that the allegations were sufficient to waive sovereign immunity based on a dangerous condition.

2025Id. at 599 .

2019Dickemann, 550 S.W.3d at 68 n.5.

2018However, there the Court noted that allowing review for prejudice "in the complete absence of any challenge to the selection of the jury panel would render RCr 9.34 's 2 waiver effective in name only, as we would then be bound to review the litigant's newly-raised challenge to the panel." Id. at 448 (citing Stroud v. Commonwealth, 922 S.W.2d 382 (Ky. 1996) ).

2018However, there the Court noted that allowing review for prejudice "in the complete absence of any challenge to the selection of the jury panel would render RCr 9.34 's 2 waiver effective in name only, as we would then be bound to review the litigant's newly-raised challenge to the panel." Id. at 448 (citing Stroud v. Commonwealth, 922 S.W.2d 382 (Ky. 1996) ).

1991As noted in Vaughn , “[creditors may reach funds in the bank account of another if the funds actually belong to the debtor.” Vaughn, 682 S.W.2d at 848 . “[I]f the creditor contends that the debtor created an apparent ownership of his property so as to defraud creditors, a garnishment proceeding is an appropriate proceeding to determine if there has been a fraudulent transfer.” Id.

1991As noted in Vaughn , “[creditors may reach funds in the bank account of another if the funds actually belong to the debtor.” Vaughn, 682 S.W.2d at 848 . “[I]f the creditor contends that the debtor created an apparent ownership of his property so as to defraud creditors, a garnishment proceeding is an appropriate proceeding to determine if there has been a fraudulent transfer.” Id.

1988In Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497 , 69 S.Ct. 201, 210 , 93 L.Ed. 187 (1948), the court said: "Whether or not employment in the Treasury outside the Narcotics Bureau would constitute ground for challenge for `actual bias,' such employment in the connections disclosed here affecting Moore and Root was not so obvious a disqualification or so inherently prejudicial as a matter of law, in the absence of any challenge to them before trial, as to require the court of its own motion or on petitioner's suggestion afterward to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial."

1988In Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497 , 69 S.Ct. 201, 210 , 93 L.Ed. 187 (1948), the court said: "Whether or not employment in the Treasury outside the Narcotics Bureau would constitute ground for challenge for `actual bias,' such employment in the connections disclosed here affecting Moore and Root was not so obvious a disqualification or so inherently prejudicial as a matter of law, in the absence of any challenge to them before trial, as to require the court of its own motion or on petitioner's suggestion afterward to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial."

1966Stipulations varying or altering trial procedure, or waiving the benefit of procedural statutes, have been consistently enforced by our courts in the absence of any claim of fraud, duress or mistake, and we can perceive no sound reason why the respondent should not now be held to what she has stipulated.” 379 S.W.2d 1 . c. 888 [7-9].

1966Welton v. Hamilton, 344 Ill. 82 , 176 N.E. 333 .

1966Welton v. Hamilton, 344 Ill. 82 , 176 N.E. 333 .

1966Thus, if the action of the corporation deprives a shareholder of his pre-emptive rights, the shareholder may have an action against the corporation to recover for their value, [citing cases] Also, if such a remedy at law would be inadequate as a protection for the shareholder’s interests in the corporation, the shareholder may have equitable relief to protect those interests, [citing cases] But the corporation is not damaged merely because its shareholders are deprived of such rights, and, therefore, the corporation has no legal or equitable right with respect to their enforcement.” Waters v.

1966Thus, if the action of the corporation deprives a shareholder of his pre-emptive rights, the shareholder may have an action against the corporation to recover for their value, [citing cases] Also, if such a remedy at law would be inadequate as a protection for the shareholder’s interests in the corporation, the shareholder may have equitable relief to protect those interests, [citing cases] But the corporation is not damaged merely because its shareholders are deprived of such rights, and, therefore, the corporation has no legal or equitable right with respect to their enforcement.” Waters v.

1966And in Rudloff v. Johnson, 8 Cir., 267 F.2d 708 , a stipulation for dismissal of plaintiff’s petition, which “made no mention of the counterclaim, but rather cited ‘ * * * that this cause shall be dismissed, with prejudice to any other or future action on account of the matters and things con *131 tained and set forth in plaintiffs petition * * ” was held not to carry dismissal of the counterclaim with it because it specifically related only to those matters in the petition without reference to the pending counterclaim.

1959It is basic that an injury to a minor gives rise to two causes of action, as appellants contend; that “ ‘the damages peculiar to one of these causes of action cannot properly be recovered in an action based on the other in the absence of any waiver or estoppel,’ ” Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co., 347 Mo. 326 , 147 S.W.2d 593 , loc. cit. 599, and that a parent is not bound by a judgment in his child’s action merely because he acted as next friend, guardian ad litem, or guardian, “except where he has permitted the child to recover or litigate the right to damages which would otherwise belong to th

1959It is basic that an injury to a minor gives rise to two causes of action, as appellants contend; that “ ‘the damages peculiar to one of these causes of action cannot properly be recovered in an action based on the other in the absence of any waiver or estoppel,’ ” Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co., 347 Mo. 326 , 147 S.W.2d 593 , loc. cit. 599, and that a parent is not bound by a judgment in his child’s action merely because he acted as next friend, guardian ad litem, or guardian, “except where he has permitted the child to recover or litigate the right to damages which would otherwise belong to th

1959It is basic that an injury to a minor gives rise to two causes of action, as appellants contend; that “ ‘the damages peculiar to one of these causes of action cannot properly be recovered in an action based on the other in the absence of any waiver or estoppel,’ ” Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co., 347 Mo. 326 , 147 S.W.2d 593 , loc. cit. 599, and that a parent is not bound by a judgment in his child’s action merely because he acted as next friend, guardian ad litem, or guardian, “except where he has permitted the child to recover or litigate the right to damages which would otherwise belong to th

1959It is basic that an injury to a minor gives rise to two causes of action, as appellants contend; that “ ‘the damages peculiar to one of these causes of action cannot properly be recovered in an action based on the other in the absence of any waiver or estoppel,’ ” Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co., 347 Mo. 326 , 147 S.W.2d 593 , loc. cit. 599, and that a parent is not bound by a judgment in his child’s action merely because he acted as next friend, guardian ad litem, or guardian, “except where he has permitted the child to recover or litigate the right to damages which would otherwise belong to th

1933While most lawyers know something of the limitations of this rule and what facts the jury must find in order to find for plaintiff thereunder, a jury of laymen could no more understand the rule itself or how to apply it to the facts in evidence than they do about extracting the cube root of a number in five figures, or perhaps applying `Einstein's Theory of Relativity,' whatever that may be." [Iman v. Freund Bread Co., 332 Mo. 461 , 58 S.W.2d 477 .] [2] This instruction, mingling matters of primary and humanitarian negligence and not covering the whole situation as to either, only tended to fu

1933While most lawyers know something of the limitations of this rule and what facts the jury must find in order to find for plaintiff thereunder, a jury of laymen could no more understand the rule itself or how to apply it to the facts in evidence than they do about extracting the cube root of a number in five figures, or perhaps applying `Einstein's Theory of Relativity,' whatever that may be." [Iman v. Freund Bread Co., 332 Mo. 461 , 58 S.W.2d 477 .] [2] This instruction, mingling matters of primary and humanitarian negligence and not covering the whole situation as to either, only tended to fu

1932There being an issue as to these, and testimony to support the finding of the trial court, the judgment is conclusive upon us in the entire absence of any error in excluding or admitting evidence in regard thereto which might call for a retrial of the issues. [Slicer v. Owens, 241 Mo. 319 .] In this case there were no declarations of law asked or given, consequently there being evidence to support the judgment, the result is not reviewable on appeal. [Buford v. Moore, 177 S. W. 865 .

1932See also State ex rel. v. Wright, 270 Mo. 376 ; Wiley v. Harlow, 274 Mo. 170 .] Under the well established rule just noted, the judgment can and should be affirmed; therefore it is not strictly necessary to pass upon the question raised whether the territory of a drainage district already organized and functioning can be included in, or brought within, the boundaries of another district by an extension of boundaries of the latter in a proceeding brought under Section 10784?

1914The law is now settled that the orders and judgments of county and probate courts, made in the exercise of their statutory powers over subjects and matters conferred upon them, are entitled to the same favorable presumptions arising, either from the statements or the silence of their records, which are accorded in like cases to circuit courts or others of general jurisdiction. [Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250 ; Desloge v. Tucker, 196 Mo. l. c. 601, and cases cited; Ancell v. Bridge Co., 223 Mo. l. c. 227; Macey v. Stark, 116 Mo. l. c. 494, and cases cited; McDonald v. McDaniel, 242 Mo. l. c. 17

1914The law is now settled that the orders and judgments of county and probate courts, made in the exercise of their statutory powers over subjects and matters conferred upon them, are entitled to the same favorable presumptions arising, either from the statements or the silence of their records, which are accorded in like cases to circuit courts or others of general jurisdiction. [Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250 ; Desloge v. Tucker, 196 Mo. l. c. 601, and cases cited; Ancell v. Bridge Co., 223 Mo. l. c. 227; Macey v. Stark, 116 Mo. l. c. 494, and cases cited; McDonald v. McDaniel, 242 Mo. l. c. 17

1914The law is now settled that the orders and judgments of county and probate courts, made in the exercise of their statutory powers over subjects and matters conferred upon them, are entitled to the same favorable presumptions arising, either from the statements or the silence of their records, which are accorded in like cases to circuit courts or others of general jurisdiction. [Johnson v. Beazley, 65 Mo. 250 ; Desloge v. Tucker, 196 Mo. l. c. 601, and cases cited; Ancell v. Bridge Co., 223 Mo. l. c. 227; Macey v. Stark, 116 Mo. l. c. 494, and cases cited; McDonald v. McDaniel, 242 Mo. l. c. 17

1905We have, then, under the law of 1865, according to the interpretation of the statutes then in force upon this subject, in State v. O’ Rourke, supra, an entire absence of any requirement of affidavits of either credible, respectable or reputable witnesses in support of the application for the removal of the cause upon the ground of the prejudice of the judge.

1893State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100 ; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542 .

1893State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100 ; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542 .