Legal Opinion

Cleveland & Aurora Mineral Land Co. v. Ross

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 16, 1896PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) Competent evidence, which tends to prove or may form a part of the proof of the matters in issue, should not be excluded. 1 Thompson on Trials, sec. 386. (2) The object of judicial investigations is the truth, and the tendency of modern ruling is, under reasonable rules, to exclude nothing that can throw light upon the transaction.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court. — Hon. W. M. Robinson, Judge. (1) Competent evidence, which tends to prove or may form a part of the proof of the matters in issue, should not be excluded. 1 Thompson on Trials, sec. 386. (2) The object of judicial investigations is the truth, and the tendency of modern ruling is, under reasonable rules, to exclude nothing that can throw light upon the transaction. Coughlin v. Eaeussler, 50 Mo. 128. (3) In trials before juries, the rule is that where there is any evidence, however slight, and whether direct or .inferential, which tends to establish the…

1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.

Ejectment for possession of a mining lot numbered 28, of the “Bonanza Tract," being two hundred feet east and west by two hundred and twenty-' *103three feet on the west end north and south, and two hundred and ten feet on the east end, in Lawrence county. Ouster is laid March 25, 1893.

The answer, after a general denial, avers that in September, 1891, with the knowledge, permission, and consent of the then owners, defendants entered the premises to dig for lead and other ore, and in good faith dug and opened shafts, extended and operated drifts therefrom, and have ever since been in possession…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gregory v. ChambersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  2. Wolff v. CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  3. Bryan v. WearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1835
  4. Vaulx v. CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1843

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Peterson v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1915
  2. Link v. JacksonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. Seehorn v. American National BankSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
  4. E. U. Hugumin & Co. v. HindsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
  5. Howerton v. Iowa State InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904

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

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

Powered by the Exa API