proof claim in Missouri

1973Ann v. Buschard, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 567 ) or that they fairly represented the membership of the class, and since we cannot assume and infer what it was plaintiff’s duty to prove, we feel that we must therefore reverse.” City of Lebanon v. Holman, Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 832, 836 (7).

1966Ann v. Buschard, Mo.App., 356 S.W.2d 567 ) or that they fairly represented the membership of the class, and since we cannot assume and infer what it was plaintiff’s duty to prove, we feel that we must therefore reverse.

2006In re Wire Rope Corporation of America, Incorporated, 300 B.R. 1 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2003) and In re Wire Rope Corporation of America, Incorporated, 302 B.R. 646 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2003) involve whether Guaranty Corporation was required to pay workers’ compensation claims that arose before Wire Rope’s Chapter 11 petition was filed if the employees did not properly and timely file a proof of claim in Wire Rope’s bankruptcy or otherwise preserve their rights as pre-petition claimants.

2003Parmer, 636 S.W.2d at 695-96 .

2003Id. at 137 .

1997Section 523(a)(3) of 11 U.S.C. says, "A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... neither listed nor scheduled under section 521(1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit—(A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing!.] ” Shore, 850 S.W.2d at 956 . .

1995We first note that in Hirschbach, this court said, “Nothing in the statute requires an insured file a formal proof of claim loss to trigger MIGA’s obligations; it must simply ‘present’ its claim.” Hirschbach, 782 S.W.2d at 684 .

1977Typical of cases in which some variance has been found not to be prejudicial are State v. Scott, 534 S.W.2d 537 (Mo.App.1976) and State v. Batchelor, 418 S.W.2d 929 (Mo.1967).

1977Typical of cases in which some variance has been found not to be prejudicial are State v. Scott, 534 S.W.2d 537 (Mo.App.1976) and State v. Batchelor, 418 S.W.2d 929 (Mo.1967).

1972Scire Facias § 9c, p. 462; 47 Am.Jur., Scire Facias, Section 32, p. 479; 46 Am.Jur.2d, Judgments, Section 354, p. 534, and Condos v. Associated Transports, Inc., Mo.App., 453 S.W.2d 682, 690 , holding that “Pleadings may be considered to be amended to conform to the proof under the rule even when the amendment is not in fact made.” Gregory Grocery Co., Inc. v. Link, supra, is distinguishable because there had never been any scire facias or application therefor to revive the original judgment, and there was no point made as to amending the writ to conform to the proof.

1951In pointing out the various reasons why under the proof the doctrine was inapplicable the court did say, among other things, "In other words, did the overturn of the boat result from the voluntary act of a third party?" In Hart v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co., 233 Mo.App. 312 , 118 S.W.2d 509 , it was held that the doctrine was inapplicable when a pile of awnings, which customers could have disarranged, fell from a counter.

1951In pointing out the various reasons why under the proof the doctrine was inapplicable the court did say, among other things, "In other words, did the overturn of the boat result from the voluntary act of a third party?" In Hart v. Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co., 233 Mo.App. 312 , 118 S.W.2d 509 , it was held that the doctrine was inapplicable when a pile of awnings, which customers could have disarranged, fell from a counter.

1925In any event, the facts here are entirely different from those in the Patterson case and the proof at bar is sufficiently cogent to refute appellants ’ contention that the larceny as charged was not committed. [State v. Thomas, 296 Mo. 459 .] We therefore overrule this contention.

1911The rule is, that though an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence is requested, if the parties submit the cause to the consideration of the court on the proof and instruction together, Avithout reservations as to the right of a nonsuit or to introduce further proof if the court be of opinion that the demurrer is well taken, the right to a nonsuit is thereafter precluded. [Lawyers’ Co-Op. Pub Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139 , 73 S. W. 155 ; McLean v. Stuve, 15 Mo. App. 317, 321 .] It is said in the authorities cited that unless the right to a nonsuit or to introduce further proof b

1911The rule is, that though an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence is requested, if the parties submit the cause to the consideration of the court on the proof and instruction together, Avithout reservations as to the right of a nonsuit or to introduce further proof if the court be of opinion that the demurrer is well taken, the right to a nonsuit is thereafter precluded. [Lawyers’ Co-Op. Pub Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139 , 73 S. W. 155 ; McLean v. Stuve, 15 Mo. App. 317, 321 .] It is said in the authorities cited that unless the right to a nonsuit or to introduce further proof b

1911The rule is, that though an instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence is requested, if the parties submit the cause to the consideration of the court on the proof and instruction together, Avithout reservations as to the right of a nonsuit or to introduce further proof if the court be of opinion that the demurrer is well taken, the right to a nonsuit is thereafter precluded. [Lawyers’ Co-Op. Pub Co. v. Gordon, 173 Mo. 139 , 73 S. W. 155 ; McLean v. Stuve, 15 Mo. App. 317, 321 .] It is said in the authorities cited that unless the right to a nonsuit or to introduce further proof b

1911It is immaterial, too, if it appears the cause was submitted, that plaintiff was not notified of the day the court intended to dispose of the same by giving-judgment thereon, for having submitted the cause along with defendant’s demurrer, plaintiff is thereafter precluded by the express terms of the statute. [McLean v. Stuve, 15 Mo. App. 317, 321 .] As before stated, the submission in this case was without any reservations whatever for it appears the cause was submitted together with the instruction and the court properly denied plaintiff’s request for a nonsuit after the judgment was given.

1887The letter calling for a more detailed statement was objected to, and as to this the court said: “The proof of waiver in this case is not an excuse for nonperformance at all; it is proof of performance, within the meaning of the condition.” But in the case of Pier v. Heinrichoffen, 52 Mo. 333 , which was an action on a promissory note, the petition averred that demand of payment was made at the maturity of the note, and that defendant was duly notified thereof.