Garbut v. Bowling
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. S. H. Woodson, Judge. The court erred in overruling the demurrer. The second count of the answer is insufficient, for the following reasons : 1. Because it does not allege that the note was ever paid, but does state in substance, that it was not. 2. The deed of separation, upon which this defense was based, was absolutely void as to all parties and for all purposes, because contrary to public policy.
Read the full summary
Error to Jackson Circuit Court.—Hon. S. H. Woodson, Judge. The court erred in overruling the demurrer. The second count of the answer is insufficient, for the following reasons : 1. Because it does not allege that the note was ever paid, but does state in substance, that it was not. 2. The deed of separation, upon which this defense was based, was absolutely void as to all parties and for all purposes, because contrary to public policy. The validity of such deeds is reluctantly upheld even in England, where the precedent was first established. St. John v. St. John, 11 Ves. 256; Westmeath v.…
1Opinion of the Court
Ewing, C.
This is a suit to recover dower. Sarah Garbut, wife of George Garbut, was married to James M. Pool. Pool sued his wife for a divorce, charging adultery, etc., and asked for the custody of his child. Sarah Pool, now Sarah Garbut, answered, filed a cross-hill, and the court gave her the custody of the child, and changed the wife’s name to Sarah Dixon, her maiden name. She then married George Garbut. Afterwards Pool died intestate, seized of an ¿state of inheritance in certain lands, and that the defendant is in possession thereof, and prayed that dower might be assigned her, etc. The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Randall v. RandallMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Carson v. MurrayNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- Wells v. StoutCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Fox v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Chapman v. GraySupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- King v. MollohanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- In Re Estate of Henry WoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Roberts v. HardyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Stebbins v. MorrisMontana Supreme Court · 1897
- Roberts v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.