Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Cardwell v. Stuart

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 12, 1903PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Row. E. M. Hughes, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

The facts of this case are satisfactorily stated in the opinion of this court on a former appeal (74 Mo. App. 182). The judgment was then reversed. But on motion for rehearing the cause was remanded to afford the plaintiff an opportunity to impeach the settlement theretofore made between him and Stuart, the administrator, which was pleaded by defendants as a bar to plaintiff’s right of recovery. Instead of impeaching the settlement for fraud or mistake, the plaintiff in his reply to that portion of the answer set*27ting up the settlement as a bar, stated the following:

“And plaintiff further says…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Chapman v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  2. Overall v. EllisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
  3. Lancaster v. ElliotMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
  4. Potter v. AdamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  5. Lawson v. SpencerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Tate v. Wabash RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. State ex rel. Cardwell v. StuartMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API