Murphy v. Smith
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Maries Circuit Court. — Hour. A. J. Seay, Judge. (1) The facts set up in defendant’s answer are supported by the evidence and entitle him to equitable relief.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Maries Circuit Court. — Hour. A. J. Seay, Judge. (1) The facts set up in defendant’s answer are supported by the evidence and entitle him to equitable relief. Bresnehan v. Price, 57 Mo. 424; Eck v. Hatcher, ,58 Mo. 235 ; Hopkins v. Williams, 58 Mo. 201; Major v. Buckley, 51 Mo. 227; Massey v. Young, 73 Mo. 260. -,(2) The answer distinctly charges knowledge of the fraiid in procuring the judgment against William Am-merman on plaintiff, but he failed to appear and testify to his own innocence, which must be taken as a strong ■circumstance against him. Mayberry v. McClurg, 74 Mo.…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin, C.
— The plaintiff sued in ejectment, and the defendant in his answer pleaded facts constituting an equitable defence, and prayed for affirmative relief against the title asserted against him.
It appears from the evidence, in which there is no conflict, that one R. E. Hutchison, as executor of Daniel Bailey, held a note against William Ammerman and Joseph Ammerman, dated September 25, 1872, payable in the sum of $196.69, one day after date, which note *336had been, executed and delivered to said Hutchison for a debt due the estate of said Bailey by William Ammerman, one of the makers. On…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bresnehan v. PriceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Thompson v. Union Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1883
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hoover v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Connor Realty Co. v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Schafer v. RobertsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- King v. Ætna InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Hanley v. Hanley, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.