Smoot v. Wathen
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. First, The plaintiff below is not a creditor or purchaser within the meaning of the fifth section of the act for the prevention of fraud, passed January 4, 1825, (Rev. Stat. of 1825, p.402,) or of the fourth section of the same act, revised and passed February 11, 1835, (Rev. Stat. of 1835, p.283,) and entitled, by virtue of this act, to insist that his intestate acquired title to this slave by five years’ continued possession, there…
Read the full summary
ERROR to Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. First, The plaintiff below is not a creditor or purchaser within the meaning of the fifth section of the act for the prevention of fraud, passed January 4, 1825, (Rev. Stat. of 1825, p.402,) or of the fourth section of the same act, revised and passed February 11, 1835, (Rev. Stat. of 1835, p.283,) and entitled, by virtue of this act, to insist that his intestate acquired title to this slave by five years’ continued possession, there .being no registered deed or will manifesting the loan. — 5 Munf. Rep., 305; Tucker’s Commentaries, 345, 346. Second, The…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
Wathen, administrator of William Smoot, deceased, brought an action of detinue against Rachel Smoot, widow of the deceased, • to recover a slave named Mary Ann. The defendant pleaded non detinet. Issue was taken thereon, and the cause was submitted to the court, neither party requiring a jury. The court found, that the defendant did detain the slave, and that her value was five hundred and fifty dollars. It was therefore adjudged, that the plaintiff have and recover said slave, or in default thereof, that he recover the damages, &c. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Upham & Gordon v. AllenMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Butler v. BoyntonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Blount v. HameyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Blount v. HameyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891