Hartnett v. Fegan
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Buchanan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. 198-207; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 65-75 ; Yeatman v. Woody, 6 Yerg. 20; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head, 93 ; Foster’s Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391; note to this case in 13 Am.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: Buchanan v. Sumner, 2 Barb. 198-207; Buckley v. Buckley, 11 Barb. 65-75 ; Yeatman v. Woody, 6 Yerg. 20; Piper v. Smith, 1 Head, 93 ; Foster’s Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 391; note to this case in 13 Am. Law Reg. 300 ; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 13 Allen, 252 ; Carlisle v. Mulhern, 19 Mo. 56 ; Duhring v. Duhring, 20 Mo. 174 ; 1 Pars, on Con., side pages 149-153 ; 3 Kent’s Com., side pages 37-40, and notes ; 1 Washb. on Real Prop., book 1, ch. 13, sec. 4, pp. 422, 423; Story on Part. 372 et seq., and notes ; Goodbunn v. Stevens, 5 Gill, 27 ; Burdyne v. Mackey, 7 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, J.
Bernard Fegan and Anthony Fegan were copartners, and occupied a tract of land which they owned and cultivated as partnership property. In 1871 Anthony died, and Bernard, as survivor, undertook the administration of the partnership effects. Hartnett, the respondent, administered on the separate estate of the deceased partner. In June, 1874, the surviving partner made his final settlement in the St. Louis Probate Court, showing a balance in his hands of $597.69. To this settlement the respondent filed exceptions, alleging that the surviving partner had failed to account for rental of the real…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Carlisle's Administrators v. MulhernSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Gamage v. BushellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
3Cited by2 opinions
- Easton v. CourtwrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. PratherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890