Legal Opinion

Morgan v. Charles

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 11, 1890PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel Dillon, Judge.

1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.

The questions presented by this record are purely questions of law arising upon conceded facts.- The action .is based upon a written promise of the defendant’s intestate, and is one to recover from the defendant as administrator, for the joint benefit of *235plaintiffs, the, sum of $1,253.29; alleged to be the one-fourth of an amount recovered by defendant as such administrator from the estate of. one Rose. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs for the full amount claimed, and the defendant, appealing, complains that such finding is against the law under the conceded facts, and is…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
  2. Jameson v. JamesonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
  3. State ex rel. Walker v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
  4. Tenny's Adminstrator v. Lasley's AdministratorsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
  5. Price v. HaeberleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dalton v. United Railways Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Williams v. Patterson, Anc. Adm.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1949
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. BiermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1966
  4. Stoll v. StollCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API