Clemens v. Wilkinson
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. The act of 1835, Revised Code p. 396, purports to establish the rule of presumption as to judgments rendered before it took effect. To say that the common law rule still remained, unaffected by the act, is to leave the part of the act relating to past judgments altogether nugatory.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. The act of 1835, Revised Code p. 396, purports to establish the rule of presumption as to judgments rendered before it took effect. To say that the common law rule still remained, unaffected by the act, is to leave the part of the act relating to past judgments altogether nugatory. This, it will be remembered, is a mere rule of evidence, not a limitation of right, or of remedy, and is nothin the different countries and States in which it is recognized, uniform in the length of time required to raise the presumption, or in the circumstances which will rebut…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action originally commenced in the St. Louis Probate Court, by James Clemens vs. the defendant in error, on a judgment obtained against Wilkinson, in his life time. The judgment was dated April 25th, 1821.' The date of the notice to the executor, defendant in error, of the intention of the plaintiff in error to present his demand for allowance, is May 27, 1842. The testator died in September, 1841. The case was afterwards taken to the Circuit Court; the defence was payment. No evidence was preserved, in consequence of an agreement of the parties that the cause depended on the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Carr v. DingsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873