Bartlett v. Ball
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. — Eon. David E. Eby, Judge. (1) Tbe cost of repairs in the future was entirely foreign to any issue in the case. It could not affect one way or the other the damages for the detention of' the dower in the past, and manifestly could not be considered in arriving at the present yearly value of the dower, as the condition and use of the property at the 'time of the trial only could be inquired into for that purpose.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pike Circuit Court. — Eon. David E. Eby, Judge. (1) Tbe cost of repairs in the future was entirely foreign to any issue in the case. It could not affect one way or the other the damages for the detention of' the dower in the past, and manifestly could not be considered in arriving at the present yearly value of the dower, as the condition and use of the property at the 'time of the trial only could be inquired into for that purpose. Young v. Thrasher, 115 Mo. 235. Moreover, when the present yearly value is established, the dowager is entitled to the sum so fixed during the…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The material facts are that on the fourth day of February, 1830, plaintiff and William H. Bartlett were married at Newport, Rhode Island, and continued to reside in the east until the eleventh day of February, 1893, when William H. Bartlett died. On the eighteenth day of March, 1830, Bartlett executed to one Marshall Mann a power of attorney to convey seventy-six acres of land in Pike county, Missouri, which he then owned, in which plaintiff did not join. The land was conveyed by Mann to Edward Oharless; plaintiff not joining in the deed. The land adjoined but was outside of the corporate…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Riley v. Clamorgan & RippeySupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
- Reily v. BatesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- Borders v. NiemoellerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1951