Peed v. Barker
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from • the Daviess Circuit Court.—Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. Appellant contends that the record of this road, with the aid of presumptions which legally come to its support, is sufficient, even in case of a direct attack, but, when collaterally assailed, as in this case, there can be no question of its sufficiency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from • the Daviess Circuit Court.—Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge. Appellant contends that the record of this road, with the aid of presumptions which legally come to its support, is sufficient, even in case of a direct attack, but, when collaterally assailed, as in this case, there can be no question of its sufficiency. However, if it should turn out that the road is irregular from beginning to end—even void, the township board having jurisdiction of roads, the appellant is safe. Perry v. Gill, 36 Mo. App. 685, and authorities there cited, and Crenshaw v. Snyder, 117 Mo. 167. (1) The…
1Opinion of the CourtGll, J.
—Plaintiff as owner of certain farm lands sued the defendant in trespass, under section 8676, Revised Statutes, 1889, for having entered upon her premises and torn down the fences and gates. The defendant admitted the entry as charged, but sought to justify the act by reason of his being road overseer and that, as such, he tore down the fences in opening a road in pursuance of the order of the township board. The township organization law, it is admitted, is in force in Daviess county, where the alleged trespass Avas committed. On the trial of the case before the court sitting as a jury, the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rousey v. WoodMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Peery v. GillCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1889
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jones v. ZinkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896