Hindman v. Piper
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Kansas City Court of Common Pleas. The appointment was not the exercise of judicial power. There was nothing to adjudicate, It was not a retrospective act, and did not impair the obligations of any contract. It was simply the exercise of an administrative power or an ordinary legislative function, carrying out the purposes of all the parties to this deed of trust.
Read the full summary
Error to Kansas City Court of Common Pleas. The appointment was not the exercise of judicial power. There was nothing to adjudicate, It was not a retrospective act, and did not impair the obligations of any contract. It was simply the exercise of an administrative power or an ordinary legislative function, carrying out the purposes of all the parties to this deed of trust. (See Stewart v. Griffin, 33 Mo. 13; Gannet v. Leonard, 47 Mo. 205.) The principles of these cases are directly in point with the case at bar. (See also Cooley’s Const. Lim. 97-106; Rice v. Parkman, 16 Mass. 326; Cochran v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
This was an action for the possession of real estate. It appeared that in 1860 one Scott Coffman, being the owner of the premises, made a deed of trust of the same to one David Hindman to secure a debt due one Adams, and afterward conveyed the same *294land absolutely to said Hindman, who died intestate in 1862, leaving the plaintiffs his heirs, the secured note having in the meantime passed into the hands of the defendants. In 1868 (Sess. Acts 1863, p. 161) the Legislature suspended the sessions of the Circuit Court in Jackson county, and in December of that year (Sess. Acts 1863-4, p. 585) an…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cochran v. Van SurlayNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Rice v. ParkmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
- State ex rel. Watts v. BoonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- State ex rel. Pittman v. AdamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Stewart v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Adams v. CowlesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Brown v. WoodySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Davis v. City of LitchfieldIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Texas Co. v. HenrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Cargile v. FernaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.