Crum v. Elliston
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeAkmond, Judge. Instruction number two given by the court, to the effect that jmima facie the property if reduced to possession became the property of the husband, was incorrect. If so reduced to p ossession by him prior to act of 1875, the property became absolutely his. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443 ; Kedwell v. Kirhpatrich, 70 Mo. 214; Burns v. Banyert, 16 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeAkmond, Judge. Instruction number two given by the court, to the effect that jmima facie the property if reduced to possession became the property of the husband, was incorrect. If so reduced to p ossession by him prior to act of 1875, the property became absolutely his. Woodford v. Stephens, 51 Mo. 443 ; Kedwell v. Kirhpatrich, 70 Mo. 214; Burns v. Banyert, 16 Mo. App. 22. Same as in F. C. Crum et al. vs. same defendants, ante, p. 591.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This case is analogous in every particular to that of Crum & Crum against these defendants, already decided at this term (ante, p. 591), except that the defendants make some objection to an instruction here which was not in that case.
In looking over the defendants’ abstract of the record we do not find that they have saved any exception to the action of the circuit court in the giving of the instruction referred to in their brief, nor that this objection was urged in the motion for a new trial as one of the grounds therefor.
And for these reasons we are precluded from an examination into that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- City of Linneus v. DuskyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Naughton v. StaggMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877