Mackler v. Cramer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cooper Circuit Court. — IIon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. (1) Tbe court erred in not giving instructions, numbered 1, 6, 7 and 9, asked by tke defendant. All the evidence shows that at the time of the division this-was not a lawful fence. Section 5652, Revised Statutes, 1879, prescribes what shall constitute a lawful fence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cooper Circuit Court. — IIon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. (1) Tbe court erred in not giving instructions, numbered 1, 6, 7 and 9, asked by tke defendant. All the evidence shows that at the time of the division this-was not a lawful fence. Section 5652, Revised Statutes, 1879, prescribes what shall constitute a lawful fence. Section 5653 gives right of action for damages by stock breaking into an inclosure, “the fence being of' the height and sufficiency aforesaid. ’ ’ Section 5654 empowers justices of the peace to appoint viewers to. ■determine the “lawfulness of such fence.”…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This case was here on a former occa sion, and will be found reported in 32 Mo. App. 542 The action is founded on a statement filed with a j ustice of the peace under the provisions of chapter 104, Revised Statutes, 1879, relating to division fences. Al the first triaTin the circuit court the case was accepted by defendant as presented by plaintiff; that is, defend - ant treated and assumed the fence in question to be a statutory division fence. I have re-examined the abstract of the' evidence and. instructions at the first trial, and find this to be so. This court, therefore, treated the.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Mackler v. CramerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hopkins v. OttMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Johnson v. FialaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912