Legal Opinion

Patton v. Fox

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 18, 1902PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. P. Butter, Judge. (1) Under the pleadings the execution of every instrument and deed in plaintiffs’ chain of title, which is regular on its face, acknowledged and duly recorded in Chariton county, appearing to be executed by defendants, is “adjudged confessed.”

Read the full summary

Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. P. Butter, Judge. (1) Under the pleadings the execution of every instrument and deed in plaintiffs’ chain of title, which is regular on its face, acknowledged and duly recorded in Chariton county, appearing to be executed by defendants, is “adjudged confessed.” And under the answers the defendants ought to to have been permitted to deny the execution of the deed of trust offered in evidence by plaintiffs given by defendants to Delia Eox. In an ejectment suit, the cause of action in issue and on trial is the title, and “the word title includes…

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.

— Ejectment for fifty acres of land in Chariton county. The petition is in the usual form. The defendants are Minnie E. Eox and her husband, W. H. Eox. The answer of W. H. Eox is a general denial. The answer of Minnie E. Fox is a general denial, with a special plea that she is the owner, in fee simple, of the land, and that it is *101her homestead, but the allegation as to homestead she admitted on the trial was not the fact. The case was tried by the court, without a jury, and judgment was entered for the de<fendants, from which the plaintiffs appealed.

The trial developed the following facts and…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Nelson v. BrodhackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
  2. Campbell v. Laclede Gas Light Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1884
  3. Ring v. JamisonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  4. Tyler v. HallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
  5. Chapman v. DoughertySupreme Court of Missouri · 1885

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ham & Ham Lead & Zinc Investment Co. v. Catherine Lead Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913
  2. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
  3. Burnette v. YoungSupreme Court of Virginia · 1907
  4. Johnson v. BurksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Palau v. Helemano Land Co.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API