Griffith v. Judge
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The statements of Chittenden could not have been admitted on the ground of Griffith’s presence and acquiescence in them when made, as it does not appear that he was within hearing of the conversations between Chittenden and Orriek.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The statements of Chittenden could not have been admitted on the ground of Griffith’s presence and acquiescence in them when made, as it does not appear that he was within hearing of the conversations between Chittenden and Orriek. Hess was a bidder, was plaintiff in the execution, and attending particularly to all that transpired; Kingsbury was his attorney, Gatzweiler the sheriff; and yet none of them heard the alleged statements or announcements by Chittenden or Orriek. n. The statements could not have been admitted on the ground of combination or…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This was an action of ejectment for lands in St. Charles county. The defendants, except Judge, were merely nominal parties, being his tenants, and having no interest in the controversy.
The defendant Judge, by his answer, set up an equitable defense, to the effect that the plaintiff’s title was by sheriff’s deed, at execution sale against the defendant, on a judgment rendered -against defendant in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, in favor of Charles J. Hess as administrator of Mary Ann Judge; that the plaintiff and Chittenden bought the property at the execution sale, under an agreement…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wooton v. HinkleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Neal v. StoneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Stewart v. NelsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Crowther v. GibsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
3Cited by2 opinions
- Merrett v. PoulterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Rees v. Peck-King Mortgage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1921