Cathcart v. Walter
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff contends that the evidence does not prove any acts committed fay him that amount to forcible entry and detainer, even though Cathcart should have entered forcibly and then turned out Waiter by force.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. The plaintiff contends that the evidence does not prove any acts committed fay him that amount to forcible entry and detainer, even though Cathcart should have entered forcibly and then turned out Waiter by force. The relation of landlord and tenant at no time existed between Cathcart and Walter ; and so Cathcart was not restricted in his right of acting as in the case of landlord and tenant, nor as in other cases where he is by law forbidden to take possession except by Iawiul process. The property in the house, as well as the leasehold interest, was…
1Opinion of the Court
Birch J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It appears from the bill of exceptions in this case, that on the 8th of February, 1847, the plaintiff in error, “in order to befriend” the plaintiff in the suit below, and his then partner Graham, negotiated with one Phigby for the purchase of his stock of liquors, fixtures, furniture, &c., in a dram shop establishment called the “Missouri Exchange,” located in this city. Five hundred dollars of the purchase money was advanced and paid down by the plaintiff, Walters and his partner Graham, and the defendant, Cathcart, endorsed their two notes, each…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rose v. City of St. CharlesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Wilson v. CampbellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Dennison v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Wunsch v. GretelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858