Jones v. Edeman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. P. Butter, Judge. (1) The process in the foreclosure proceedings was void. It wa.s not stated in the affidavit that the ordinary process of law could not be served on defendants in this State. As the law stood prior to the Act of 1887 service by publication could be had on any non-resident defendant whether an individual or corporation.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. P. Butter, Judge. (1) The process in the foreclosure proceedings was void. It wa.s not stated in the affidavit that the ordinary process of law could not be served on defendants in this State. As the law stood prior to the Act of 1887 service by publication could be had on any non-resident defendant whether an individual or corporation. Process could be served on any non-resident found in the State and upon the agent of any nonresident corporation having an office in this. State. Laws 1881, p. 174. At the time of the passage of the Act of 1887,…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is an action in ejectment for one hundred and sixty acres of land, the northeast quarter of section 12 in township 55 north, of Range 21 west, in Chariton county, Missouri.' Edeman, the original defendant, was the tenant of Lois and Edna Kennedy. The Kennedys were made defendants on their application. Harriett E. Rolfe is the common source of title.
Plaintiff’s title was acquired by deed from Harriett E. Rolfe and husband, of date May 4, 1905'. Defendants’ title was deraigned from W. S. Woods, who purchased under a judgment foreclosing a mortgage given by Harriet E. Rolfe and husband to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gray v. BowlesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Holt County v. CannonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Hedrix v. HedrixMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Keaton v. JorndtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Tufts v. VolkeningSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.