Burnes Estate v. Porter
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M* Woodson, Judge. STATEMENT BY GILL, J. This is a suit for the partition of certain real estate in St, Joseph. The controversy here is not as to the title of the property, but as to whether or not The Ayr Lawn Company, a corporation, should be allowed to come into the case as a party defendant and share in the proceeds, because of having paid certain taxes, etc., on the undivided half interest owned by the other defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. A. M* Woodson, Judge. STATEMENT BY GILL, J. This is a suit for the partition of certain real estate in St, Joseph. The controversy here is not as to the title of the property, but as to whether or not The Ayr Lawn Company, a corporation, should be allowed to come into the case as a party defendant and share in the proceeds, because of having paid certain taxes, etc., on the undivided half interest owned by the other defendants. The facts are somewhat complicated, but to a full understanding of the case it seems only necessary to state, that in…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
I. It seems proper, in the first place, to notice the ground upon which the court denied the application of the Ayr Lawn Company to become a party defendant in this suit. The record above quoted shows, that the trial court entertained the view that, because the plaintiff Burnes estate (a corporation) and the Ayr Lawn Company had the same persons as officers, therefore the latter corporation was estopped by the conduct of the former. Or, to be more specific, because the Burnes estate, ¡through its counsel, and at the hearing before the referee, objected to an accounting of the rents and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Horrigan v. WellmuthSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Johnson v. PayneNebraska Supreme Court · 1881
- Hinters v. HintersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Hitchcock v. MerrickWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Eads v. RetherfordIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mills v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916