Clarkson v. Stanchfield
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Wayne Circuit Court. I. The issue of ownership was not before tlie court and it should not have passed upon it in its judgment. II. Plaintiff in his reply to the separate answer of Hull & French, does not traverse their disclaimer of title to, and possession of all except a part of “east one-half of south one-quai1-ter.”
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit Court. I. The issue of ownership was not before tlie court and it should not have passed upon it in its judgment. II. Plaintiff in his reply to the separate answer of Hull & French, does not traverse their disclaimer of title to, and possession of all except a part of “east one-half of south one-quai1-ter.” The issue then was upon defendant’s possession of this part of “east one-lialf of south one-quarter,” if that issue was found against defendants, judgment should have been given for possession of that part alone and for the damages to that. The judgment in ejectment…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, Judge
This was an action of ejectment against four defendants. When the cause was reached for trial, the plaintiff dismissed as to one defendant. The other three having answered, but not further appearing, the cause was submitted to the court without a jury, whereupon the finding and judgment were for the plaintiff, for recovery of possession and $1,650 damages, with $10 for monthly value until surrender of the premises. No motion for a new trial was filed, nor does any bill of exceptions appear in the record.
The transcript before us presents a motion filed by defendants at the next succeeding…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. FooteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
3Cited by4 opinions
- Callahan v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- Gibbany v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Clark v. PerdueWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1895
- Llewellyn v. LlewellynSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907