Gott v. Williams
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. It is sufficient to state, in addition to the facts stated in the opinion below, that Canefox stated on cross-examination that he agreed with Gott that he would pay back the purchase money of the horse, and that Gott was to commence this action and prosecute it for the benefit of Canefox; that he (Canefox) was to pay all costs that might accrue, and have whatever might be recovere'd; that he afterwards did pay back the said purchase money.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. It is sufficient to state, in addition to the facts stated in the opinion below, that Canefox stated on cross-examination that he agreed with Gott that he would pay back the purchase money of the horse, and that Gott was to commence this action and prosecute it for the benefit of Canefox; that he (Canefox) was to pay all costs that might accrue, and have whatever might be recovere'd; that he afterwards did pay back the said purchase money. The following is the instruction alluded to in the opinion of the court: “ 1. If the jury believe from the evidence that…
1Opinion of the CourtNaptoN, Judge
In this case the defendant Williams had obtained a judgment before a justice of the peace in Porter township, of Greene county, against Goodrich and Ricketts, the former of whom lived in Campbell township of the same county. The execution was issued on the 30th of June, 1857, and directed to the defendant Forbes, constable of Porter township. The execution was renewed on the 12th of September, and on the 8th of December the constable levied on a horse, then in the possession of Gott, the plaintiff. The horse had been purchased by Gott of one Canefox, who had bought him of Goodrich, defendant…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Heman v. LarkinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Fabien v. GrabowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Missouri Granitoid Co. v. GeorgeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Krum v. BeardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862