Goltermann v. Schiermeyer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. (1) Defendant’s instruction number 1 is illegal. First. It predicates the defendant’s right to recover upon the proposition that the plaintiff and his predecessors made no claim to the land in dispute, and that defendant and his grantor claimed the land as their own. This branch of the instruction is grossly erroneous. Thomas v. Baht, 45 Mo. 387; Mayler v. Hughes, 60 Mo. 105. Second.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. (1) Defendant’s instruction number 1 is illegal. First. It predicates the defendant’s right to recover upon the proposition that the plaintiff and his predecessors made no claim to the land in dispute, and that defendant and his grantor claimed the land as their own. This branch of the instruction is grossly erroneous. Thomas v. Baht, 45 Mo. 387; Mayler v. Hughes, 60 Mo. 105. Second. It assumes that the defendant had been cutting rails and house logs on the eastern end of the land in dispute; when there was not a particle of evidence upon which to base…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.
The suit is ejectment originally to recover sixteen and ninety-five one hundreths acres of land in section 31, township 46, range 1 east, in St. Charles county. The controversy originally involved the location of the true line running east and west through the center of said section, plaintiff having title to the south part of the northwest quarter *296and the west half of the northeast quarter and defendant having title to the southwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter. The disputed land extended from a north and south line through the center of the east half of the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bales v. PerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Draper v. ShootSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Bradley v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Goltermann v. SchiermeyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Sherwood v. BakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Frazier v. Shantz Read Estate & Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Hedges v. PollardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Cooley v. HendersonOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Cross v. HuffmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
- Ward v. IhlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.