Dugans v. Livingston
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL to Washington Circuit Court. 1. It is insisted, that the boy Toney did not pass to the piaihtifft, under the third filduse bt Stephen Dügan’s Will, but that as to him, Stephen Dugan died intestate. The operative Words in that clause on Whifch the plaintiffs fodna their claim, are “perishdhie property.’’ This term is defined ündér otir iaW as meaning sudh property ds is liable td peridh, he consumed, dr rendered Wdrse by keeping, tícfmparé sec. íl3 ahd 34 drt.
Read the full summary
APPEAL to Washington Circuit Court. 1. It is insisted, that the boy Toney did not pass to the piaihtifft, under the third filduse bt Stephen Dügan’s Will, but that as to him, Stephen Dugan died intestate. The operative Words in that clause on Whifch the plaintiffs fodna their claim, are “perishdhie property.’’ This term is defined ündér otir iaW as meaning sudh property ds is liable td peridh, he consumed, dr rendered Wdrse by keeping, tícfmparé sec. íl3 ahd 34 drt. ÍI., title “administration,’’ Perishable property the administrator thrist deli to the highest bidder stitiH after filing liis…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
Jerry, John, Thomas Cox and Noah George Dugan brought their suit, in the circuit court of Washington county, against Thomas R. Livingston. The plaintiffs were children of Stephen Dugan, deceased, and the suit was for a negro boy named Toney. The defendant claimed under Catharine Dugan, (the widow of said Stephen Dugan, deceased) one sixth part of said negro. Matilda Maness and her husband, Pleasant Maness, on their application, were made parties to the suit, and filed their answer, claiming one sixth or a child’s part of said slave.
The following facts appear by the record: Stephen Dugan made…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Reinders v. KoppelmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Garth v. GarthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Snorgrass v. ThomasMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912