sufficient compliance rule in Missouri

1929This has been held to be a sufficient compliance with the rule and follows the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirkland v. Bixby et al., 282 Mo. 462 , 466, 322 S.W. 462 , and cases there cited. [See, also, Forsee v. Garrison, 208 Mo. App. 408 , 235 S.W. 473 , Langs v. Midwest Motor Securities Co. (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 272 .] The points upon which defendant relies are clearly understood by the court, and plaintiff seems not to have been misled as indicated by the answers made to every point raised by appellant.

1924This has been held to be a sufficient compliance with the rule and follows the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirkland v. Bixby et al., 282 Mo. 462 , 466 and cases there cited. [See also Forsee v. Garrison, 208 Mo. App. 408 ; 235 S. W. 408 ; Lange v. Midwest Motor Securities Co. 231 S. W. 272 .] The points upon which defendant relies are clearly understood by the court and plaintiff seems not to have been misled as indicated by the answers made to every point raised by appellant.

1929This has been held to be a sufficient compliance with the rule and follows the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirkland v. Bixby et al., 282 Mo. 462 , 466, 322 S.W. 462 , and cases there cited. [See, also, Forsee v. Garrison, 208 Mo. App. 408 , 235 S.W. 473 , Langs v. Midwest Motor Securities Co. (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 272 .] The points upon which defendant relies are clearly understood by the court, and plaintiff seems not to have been misled as indicated by the answers made to every point raised by appellant.

1929This has been held to be a sufficient compliance with the rule and follows the ruling of the Supreme Court in Kirkland v. Bixby et al., 282 Mo. 462 , 466, 322 S.W. 462 , and cases there cited. [See, also, Forsee v. Garrison, 208 Mo. App. 408 , 235 S.W. 473 , Langs v. Midwest Motor Securities Co. (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 272 .] The points upon which defendant relies are clearly understood by the court, and plaintiff seems not to have been misled as indicated by the answers made to every point raised by appellant.

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 470 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo. Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 476 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 470 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo. Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 476 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 470 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo. Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 476 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 470 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo. Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1972Flood v. State (Mo.Sup) 476 S.W.2d 529 ; Drew v. State (Mo.Sup.) 436 S.W.2d 727 ; State v. Sayre (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 303 ; State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316 .

1940Lee was insane; (3) that the opinions of such witnesses as to insanity are competent and admissible for the same reasons that opinions as to sanity are admissible (respondents in effect urge that such opinions may not be excluded merely because, in advance of giving an opinion as to insanity or incompetency, the witness does not detail facts which are inconsistent with the mental competency of the person under investigation) and (4) that the quotation from the case of Clark v. Commerce Trust Co., supra, states the "minority rule." Respondents rely primarily upon the opinion of this court in Ca

1940Lee was insane; (3) that the opinions of such witnesses as to insanity are competent and admissible for the same reasons that opinions as to sanity are admissible (respondents in effect urge that such opinions may not be excluded merely because, in advance of giving an opinion as to insanity or incompetency, the witness does not detail facts which are inconsistent with the mental competency of the person under investigation) and (4) that the quotation from the case of Clark v. Commerce Trust Co., supra, states the "minority rule." Respondents rely primarily upon the opinion of this court in Ca

1934It is true that it is contemplated by such section that a finding of facts in any particular case should embrace all the material facts in controversy bearing upon the issues involved set out in detail and that the court should also state separately its conclusions of law upon said facts when requested, in order that proper exceptions might be made thereto. [Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258 , l.c. 268, 33 S.W. 6 .] Upon the record in this case, there appears to have been a sufficient compliance with this rule.

1934It is true that it is contemplated by such section that a finding of facts in any particular case should embrace all the material facts in controversy bearing upon the issues involved set out in detail and that the court should also state separately its conclusions of law upon said facts when requested, in order that proper exceptions might be made thereto. [Cochran v. Thomas, 131 Mo. 258 , l.c. 268, 33 S.W. 6 .] Upon the record in this case, there appears to have been a sufficient compliance with this rule.

1934If the latter clause in the statute is to be given any meaning at all, and undoubtedly it should, ■ such seems to have been the legislative intent. [Alexander v. Messervey (S. C.), 14 S. E. 854, 855 .

1929We hold there is a substantial compliance with Rule 17, and the motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled." [Smith-McCord-Townsend Dry Goods Co. v. American Express Co., 260 S.W. 129 , l.c. 131.] The cases cited by respondent do not support her contention.

1923What was said with respect to the allegations in the bill of interpleader, when this case was here before, Goggin v. Mutual Aid Union, supra, does not mean that the exact words, `no act on its part has brought about the conflicting,' must be used, but if it appears from the whole of the bill of interpleader that no wilful acts, on its part, have brought about such conflicting claims, it is a sufficient compliance with the rule therein announced. . . .