Storms v. White
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court, Hon. James M. Davis, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. The refusal of instructions asked by defendant was erroneous. They complied, substantially, with all iihe requirements of the stray law. Rev. Stat., sects. 7333-7336. II. The law presumes that every man has a lawful fence around his field. Since this is the requirement of the law, the burden of proof is not on defendant to show it. III.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court, Hon. James M. Davis, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. The refusal of instructions asked by defendant was erroneous. They complied, substantially, with all iihe requirements of the stray law. Rev. Stat., sects. 7333-7336. II. The law presumes that every man has a lawful fence around his field. Since this is the requirement of the law, the burden of proof is not on defendant to show it. III. The jury were not told to find the value of the property, nor were they told to find defendant’s interest in the property. Both of these are necessary. Mix v.…
1Opinion of the CourtPhilips, P. J.
This is an action of replevin. Petition in the usual form. Under the order issued thereon, the sheriff took and delivered the property to plaintiff. The answer pleaded the general issue, and then pleaded specially that defendant was in possession of the cattle in controversy, and that defendant had taken the cattle up, and held them under the stray law; that said cattle *33had broken into the premises of defendant, inclosed with a lawful fence ; whereupon the defendant proceeded to give the notice, as provided by statute, preparatory to posting said animals as strays. The reply tendered the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Flint-Walling Manufacturing Co. v. BallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Mackler v. SchusterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Kelley v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1914