Webb v. Archibald
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. (1) William Winkler has a common law marital interest in the land affected by the decree and may,- by possibility have a curtesy in it. His rights should have been affirmatively adjudicated by the court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. — Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. (1) William Winkler has a common law marital interest in the land affected by the decree and may,- by possibility have a curtesy in it. His rights should have been affirmatively adjudicated by the court. Dyer v. Wittier, 89 Mo. 87; Flesh v. Lindsay, 115 Mo. 1. (2) The deed ‘‘offered” should have been put in' evidence and incorporated in the bill of exceptions, showing that Margaret Lindsay had acquired the land affected by the decree since the execution of her will. Respondents do not contend that She thus acquired the land…
1DissentBarclay, J.
(dissenting). — We do not agree to the judgment of reversal, announced by the learned chief justice.
The majority of the court hold that the real estate acquired by Mrs. Lindsay, after making her will, passed to Thomas and William Archibald-and Margaret Winkler by the third paragraph of that document. We dissent from that view.
None of the other points discussed in tha divisional opinion (28 S. W. Rep. 81) is mentioned in the opinion of our brethren, so we assume that no error in the circuit proceedings is found on account thereof.
The ruling above stated is the sole basis for discarding the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. New York & Manhattan Beach Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Eneberg v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Farish v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- McKim v. HarwoodMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Hale v. AudsleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1894