Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Big Medicine Drainage District No. 1

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBland, J.

This is an action brought by plaintiff against defendant to recover the amount of damages awarded by a condemnation jury, the damages also being claimed by the interpleader Lindblom.

The district filed an answer requesting the court to' require the parties and one Stoltzman to interplead, which was done, Stoltzman disclaimed any interest in the fund and a decree was entered adjudging the money to plaintiff. Interpleader Lindblom has appealed.

The facts show that defendant, the Big Medicine Drainage District No. 1 was organized in 1920 and in due time proceeded to lay out, survey, condemn and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Simpson v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
  2. Buschling v. AckleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
  3. Plum v. City of KansasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
  4. Jasper Land & Improvement Co. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
  5. Hilton v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Austin v. Capitol Livestock Auction CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1970
  2. State Ex Rel. Scott v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
  3. Bank of America v. City of GlendaleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. City of Austin v. Capitol Livestock Auction CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1970

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API