Dieckman v. Young
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Warren Circuit Court. — Hon. Elliot M. Hughes, Judge. (1) If defendant rests on any fact not included in the petition he must plead it specially. E. S. 1899, sec. 604; E. S. 1889, sec. 20-49; Hudson v. Eailroad, 101 Mo. 29; Guinotte v. Eidge, 46 Mo. App. 254; Northrop v. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 444. (2) The alleged sale from Eammelkamp to Young is within the statute of frauds and must be evidenced by some memorandum in writing.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Warren Circuit Court. — Hon. Elliot M. Hughes, Judge. (1) If defendant rests on any fact not included in the petition he must plead it specially. E. S. 1899, sec. 604; E. S. 1889, sec. 20-49; Hudson v. Eailroad, 101 Mo. 29; Guinotte v. Eidge, 46 Mo. App. 254; Northrop v. Ins. Co., 47 Mo. 444. (2) The alleged sale from Eammelkamp to Young is within the statute of frauds and must be evidenced by some memorandum in writing. E. S. 1899, sec. 3419; Singer v. Holtzclaw, 112 Mo. 523; Smith v. Schell, 82 Mo. 215. (3) And the objection may be made, at the time of the introduction of…
1Opinion of the CourtBond, J.
This action is for conversion of a crib of corn. The defense was that plaintiff was not the owner of the corn, but that it belonged to defendant. On the trial defendant had judgment. Plaintiff appealed.
I. The first point made by appellant is that the general denial did not authorize the defense of the ownership of the corn by defendant. The plaintiff had alleged ownership in himself; this was negatived by the general denial. It was competent for defendant to sustain his side of the issue so joined by evidence of ownership in himself, for in so doing he merely controverted a fact which…
2Cited by2 opinions
- H. Feldman's Sons Co. v. NetskySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Toledo Computing Scale Co. v. AubuchonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915