Llewellyn v. Llewellyn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court. — lion. David H. Ely, Judge. Defendant was understood to maintain on the trial that the suit ought to have been brought against the occupying tenant of defendant and not against defendant. The form of the action is that of ejectment. Ejectment is recognized by our statute, as well as by the common law, as a proper form of action by a tenant in common against a disseizing cotenant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court. — lion. David H. Ely, Judge. Defendant was understood to maintain on the trial that the suit ought to have been brought against the occupying tenant of defendant and not against defendant. The form of the action is that of ejectment. Ejectment is recognized by our statute, as well as by the common law, as a proper form of action by a tenant in common against a disseizing cotenant. It is, of course, conceded that in ordinary ejectment to recover the possession of land, the person occupying the land is the person to be sued. This results from the fact that the…
1Opinion of the CourtLamm, J.
This is a suit in ejectment to recover an undivided interest of 4-21 in the north half of the northwest quarter of section 10, township- 63, range 6, in Clark county, "Missouri. Ouster is laid as of March 26, 1895. The answer was a general denial. The trial was to a jury and a verdict for defendant was coerced by a mandatory instruction. From a judgment entered on that verdict, after due preliminary steps, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff’s learned counsel press with astute vigor certain alleged errors of the trial court in the exclusion *306of testimony, and in ruling against the competency of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bledsoe v. SimmsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Peterson v. LaikSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Tetley v. McElmurrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Kunze v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Clarkson v. StanchfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hunter v. WethingtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Carter v. CarterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911