Cheek v. Waldron
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) Instruction number 2 given for respondent submits to the jury the question of whether a sale had taken place, when it should have been determined by the court from the written contract of sale and the undisputed evidence of delivery. It asks the jury to find for the respondent on a state of facts not supported by the evidence. Knoop v. Bis. Co., 26 Mo. App. 303; Williams .v.
Read the full summary
Error to the Jaclcson Circuit Court. — Hon. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) Instruction number 2 given for respondent submits to the jury the question of whether a sale had taken place, when it should have been determined by the court from the written contract of sale and the undisputed evidence of delivery. It asks the jury to find for the respondent on a state of facts not supported by the evidence. Knoop v. Bis. Co., 26 Mo. App. 303; Williams .v. Evans, Adm'r, 29 Mo. 201 ; Hatch v. Bailey, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 20; Glass v. Gelvin, 80 Mo. 297; Estes v. Fry, 22 Mo. App. 88; Burrows v. St ebb ins, 26 Vt.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
— The respondent commenced a suit in the circuit court of Jackson county against J. H. Cheek on a promissory note for $1111.66, and in aid thereof *24sued out a writ of attachment which on the sixteenth day of March, 1888, was levied upon one hundred and twenty head of cattle as the property of said J. EL Cheek. At the return term of said writ the interpleader James P. Cheek filed an interplea claiming the cattle so attached as his property. The plaintiff in the attachment filed an answer to the interplea denying the claim of ownership asserted by the said James P. Cheek and alleging that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dougherty v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Young v. KellarSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Arnholt v. HartwigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Peck v. ChildersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wetmore v. WoodsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895