Greenleaf v. Weakley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. G. Wear, Judge. If Miller could have maintained the action, so can plaintiff, as his grantee. R. S., sec. 2453; Kelly v. Claney, 15 Mo. App. 519; Kean v. Kolkschrinder, 21 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Stoddard Circuit Court. — Hon. Jno. G. Wear, Judge. If Miller could have maintained the action, so can plaintiff, as his grantee. R. S., sec. 2453; Kelly v. Claney, 15 Mo. App. 519; Kean v. Kolkschrinder, 21 Mo. App. 538. And plaintiff’s deed from O. P. Miller and wife was and is proper evidence to show plaintiff’s rights, under his derivative title, to maintain this, action (Revised Statutes, section 2457), and it was error in the court to exclude it upon the objection of defendant. Pentz v. Kenster, 41 Mo. 447; May n. Duckett, 4S Mo. 472. The testimony of the defendant, as…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This was an action of forcible entry and detainer. The statement alleges that on the fourth of November, 1886, the plaintiff and his grantor, O. P. Miller, were-in possession of the premises, describing them, and that on that day the defendant forcibly entered, etc. The-plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that the defendant peaceably entered and took possession on the fourth of November, as alleged.
At the close of the evidence no instructions were asked by either party, so far as the bill of "exceptions discloses, but the court, sitting as a jury, found, as recited in the bill of exceptions,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Krevet v. MeyerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- McCartney's v. AldersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Craig v. DonnellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Beeler v. CardwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
- Dilworth v. FeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ray v. BlackmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1906
- Graham v. WomackMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900