Burgwald v. Weippert
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. The petition shows neither directly nor indirectly any contract with Eliza Weippert, or whether she held the lot as her separate or general estate ; it is therefore bad. (Porter et al.y. Tooke et al., 35 Mo. 107.) Hence the judgment, being against John and Eliza Weippert, was wrong.
Read the full summary
Error to Jefferson Circuit Court. The petition shows neither directly nor indirectly any contract with Eliza Weippert, or whether she held the lot as her separate or general estate ; it is therefore bad. (Porter et al.y. Tooke et al., 35 Mo. 107.) Hence the judgment, being against John and Eliza Weippert, was wrong. (Heltzell v. Hynes, 35 Mo. 482; Walkenborst v. Coste, 33 Mo. 401.) The judgment was also special against the property of the wife, while she was no party to the contract. It was bad for that reason, and also as extending to her whole property, three acres, instead of being limited…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The petition states that defendant John Weippert entered into a contract with the plaintiff, by which the latter contracted to erect a brick dwelling upon the land of this defendant’s wife, the said Eliza; that he performed the contract; that in due time he filed his account for the work to obtain a lien upon the building and lot under the act providing for mechanics’ liens, and asked for the proper judgment. Issues were made up, the cause went to trial, the plaintiff obtained a general judgment against both defendants, and a special one against the property.
*61Defendants object to the record,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- EC Robinson Lumber Company v. LowreyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1955
- Winslow Bros. v. McCully Stone Mason Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Garnett v. BerryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Magidson v. SternMissouri Court of Appeals · 1941
- Badger Lumber & Coal Co. v. PugsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1933
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.