Tennison v. Tennison
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Second District Court. I. There being no bill of exceptions, this court will only notice error apparent on the face of the record proper. (Bateson v. Clarke et al., 37 Mo. 34 ; State, to the use, etc., v. Matson et al., 38 Mo. 490.) Courts of equity, for many purposes, treat tbe husband and wife as distinct persons, capable of con” tracting with each other and of having separate estates, debts, and interests.
Read the full summary
Error to Second District Court. I. There being no bill of exceptions, this court will only notice error apparent on the face of the record proper. (Bateson v. Clarke et al., 37 Mo. 34 ; State, to the use, etc., v. Matson et al., 38 Mo. 490.) Courts of equity, for many purposes, treat tbe husband and wife as distinct persons, capable of con” tracting with each other and of having separate estates, debts, and interests. (Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Yes. 144-9 ; Livingston v. Livingston, 2 Johns. Ch. 539 ; 2 Sto. Eq., § 1368 ; Putnam v. Bicknell, 18 Wis. 333.) II. The petition states facts sufficient…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
This is a proceeding in equity to vacate and set aside certain deeds, and for a decree vesting in the plaintiff the title to lands therein described. An unauthenticated draft of a bill of exceptions appears in the record, the judge before whom the cause was tried having refused to sign it because of its alleged unfairness and insufficiency. There is, therefore, nothing but the record proper before this court upon which it can act; and that presents the single question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition to justify the awarding of the relief prayed for, the truth of the facts…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- New Orleans v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- Barron v. BarronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1852
- Putnam v. BicknellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Resor v. ResorIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
- Cooper v. RemsenNew York Court of Chancery · 1821
3Cited by17 opinions
- In Matter of BadgerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- Rice, Stix & Co. v. SallySupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Hammons v. RenfrowSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Woodford v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Going v. OrnsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.