Zuendt v. Doerner
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. E. D, Wood, Judge. STATEMENT. The suit is to recover $350, plaintiff’s part of rent on certain premises in the city of St. Louis which the defendant collected and withheld from plaintiff. The answer set np a counterclaim, to-wit, a note for $2,000 dated July 8, 1895, payable to defendant and executed by plaintiff and her husband, Adelbert Zuendt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Eon. E. D, Wood, Judge. STATEMENT. The suit is to recover $350, plaintiff’s part of rent on certain premises in the city of St. Louis which the defendant collected and withheld from plaintiff. The answer set np a counterclaim, to-wit, a note for $2,000 dated July 8, 1895, payable to defendant and executed by plaintiff and her husband, Adelbert Zuendt. The reply admitted the execution of the note, alleged that it was given without consideration, and set out circumstantially the facts upon which plaintiff relied to show that the note was without…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
1. The evidence in the record is insufficient to show that defendant acquired title to the note of March 4,1892, from her mother, Mrs. Seitz, the payee, and if the administrator of the estate of Mrs. Seitz was a party to this suit contesting the right of defendant to the note of July 8, 1895, given in place of the note of March 4, 1892, quite a different question would he presented for decision from the one that is before us.
Charles Seitz, the son of Louise Seitz, administered on the estate of his mother and had closed the administration by a final settlement before this suit was commenced.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Richardson v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Hobson v. HassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- State ex rel. Hospes v. BranchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Wilton v. EatonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
- Adey v. AdeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Dorris v. CronanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910