Hamilton v. The Steamboat Ironton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioners Court. The respondent was too late with his objection to the complaint, after a trial in the justice’s court without objection, and after continuances in the law commissioner’s court. See 5 Cow. 15. 7 Cow. 366. 1 M. & S. 230. 2 Hill, 637. 3 Mo. Rep. 348. 5 Mo. Rep. 533. R. C. 1845, §13, §18, p. 670. The complaint was sufficient within the decision in 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioners Court. The respondent was too late with his objection to the complaint, after a trial in the justice’s court without objection, and after continuances in the law commissioner’s court. See 5 Cow. 15. 7 Cow. 366. 1 M. & S. 230. 2 Hill, 637. 3 Mo. Rep. 348. 5 Mo. Rep. 533. R. C. 1845, §13, §18, p. 670. The complaint was sufficient within the decision in 6 Mo. Rep. 356. The affiant states his means of knowledge, by stating that he is the agent of the owner. 1. If Hamilton is the plaintiff in the suit, McLean makes the affidavit, without stating his means of…
1Opinion of the CourtRvland, Judge
The complaint filed in this case presents the only question to be noticed by this court. ’ The complaint is as follows :
*524££ Samuel McLean, agent for Wm. Hamilton, sole owner of the steamboat Kentucky, complains that he has a demand against the steamboat Ironton, a boat used in navigating the waters of this state, amounting to $22 10, which demand accrued against the said steamboat on account of damages and injuries done the steamboat Kentucky, within the six months next preceding the commencement of this suit, and is, in all its particulars, as follows :
££ Steamboat Ironton,
“ Dr. to William…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bridgeford v. Steam Boat ElkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
3Cited by1 opinion
- Eldridge v. Steamboat William CampbellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859