mere clerical error in Missouri

2025Id. at 667 .

1990See, e.g., Lansing v. Lansing, 736 S.W.2d 554 (Mo.App.1987) (failure to include a legal description of the property); First Nat’l Bank of Collinsville v. Goldfarb, 527 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.App.1975) (failure to add the letter “s” in writing the word “defendants”).

1980State v. Bookman, 348 Mo. 656 , 154 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1941).

1980State v. Bookman, 348 Mo. 656 , 154 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1941).

1916Joseph, 247 Mo. 197, 203-4 .] But in the case now before us, there is no attempt to follow the statute.

1914Joseph, 104 Mo. 114 , l. c. 121.] Where the jury could not fail to understand what was meant, in view of the pleading and the evidence, a mere clerical error is not ground for reversal. [St.

1914Louis Union Packing Co. v. Mertens, 150 Mo. App. 583 .] As no one could be misled into thinking the portion of the street referred to was any other than where plaintiff fell, the instruction does not tender a false issue, as claimed by defendant.

1913The identical point in question was ruled adversely to the contention of defendant in Steed v. Barnhill, 71 Ala. 157 ; Waddingham v. Dickson, 29 Pac. 177 ; Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Colo. 82 ; Davis v. Shuah, 36 N. E. 122 . [See also 34 Cyc. 1882.] Instruction No. 6 is complained of as inviting the jury to find against one of the defendants only.

1913The identical point in question was ruled adversely to the contention of defendant in Steed v. Barnhill, 71 Ala. 157 ; Waddingham v. Dickson, 29 Pac. 177 ; Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Colo. 82 ; Davis v. Shuah, 36 N. E. 122 . [See also 34 Cyc. 1882.] Instruction No. 6 is complained of as inviting the jury to find against one of the defendants only.

1913The identical point in question was ruled adversely to the contention of defendant in Steed v. Barnhill, 71 Ala. 157 ; Waddingham v. Dickson, 29 Pac. 177 ; Cowell v. Colorado Springs Co., 3 Colo. 82 ; Davis v. Shuah, 36 N. E. 122 . [See also 34 Cyc. 1882.] Instruction No. 6 is complained of as inviting the jury to find against one of the defendants only.

1912It is apparent enough that this was a mere clerical error, resulting from the inadvertency of the circuit attorney, and in no sense tended to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.” In the case of State v. Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129 , the indictment was for forgery and charged that defendant knowingly uttered certain “false, forged and counterfeit promissory notes ... of the purport following; to-wit: A note of one hundred dollars purporting to be made by Thomas Montgomery, which said false, forged and counterfeit promissory note is of the purport following: Not

1912And in cases involving titles in this jurisdiction the same liberal doctrine in interpreting our own statute on amendments obtains, thus: Sage v. Tucker, 51 Mo. App. 336 , was an action for penal damages for tearing down the fences and gates on the land of Mrs. Sage.

1912It is apparent enough that this was a mere clerical error, resulting from the inadvertency of the circuit attorney, and in no sense tended to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits.” In the case of State v. Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129 , the indictment was for forgery and charged that defendant knowingly uttered certain “false, forged and counterfeit promissory notes ... of the purport following; to-wit: A note of one hundred dollars purporting to be made by Thomas Montgomery, which said false, forged and counterfeit promissory note is of the purport following: Not

1911We therefore conclude that the error is cured by section 5115, Revised Statutes 1909. [State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119 .] The evidence showed the law was voted on in 1906.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1900While intendment can not supply the omission of an indispensable word as was held in State v. Furgerson, 152 Mo. 92 , and State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328 , a mere clerical error in the spelling of a word does not vitiate when the whole context discloses the word intended to be used. [1 Bishop’s New Criminal Law, sec. 354; State v. Estis, 70 Mo. loc. cit. 437.] Moreover, the words “made and” could be stricken out and a perfect indictment, charging an assault, and the weapon with which it was committed would still remain, and this is always allowable. [State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 .] III.

1899Mortg., sec. 478; Johnson v. Simpson, 77 Ind. 412 .] So that the clause giving the mortgagee possession (if the word be mortgagee, instead of a mere clerical error for mortgagor) is both unusual and unnecessary.

1892Ranney v. Thomas, 45 Mo. 111 .