Heirs of Cogswell v. Freudenau
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Warwick Hough, Judge. (1) The administrator of John C. Cogswell, although appointed and qualified subsequent to the judgment of the probate court, when thus qualified became the owner of the asset, and was properly a party to the appeal, with the heirs of John C. Cogswell.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Warwick Hough, Judge. (1) The administrator of John C. Cogswell, although appointed and qualified subsequent to the judgment of the probate court, when thus qualified became the owner of the asset, and was properly a party to the appeal, with the heirs of John C. Cogswell. R. S. sec. 278, p. 181. (2) Mr. Ereudenau, having claimed the funds in the treasury at Washington as his individual property, and, being opposed before the treasury department by the heirs of John 0. Cogs-well, who claimed the fund was partnership estate of Cogs-well &…
1Opinion of the Court
GOODE, J.-
In 1859 or 1860, John C. Cogswell and William Ereudenau the defendant, were partners in the milling business in the city of St. Louis. The co-partnership paid sundry taxes to the Hnited States government, which turned out to have been illegally collected and were afterwards refunded by the government between the years 1868 and 1897, the last- money being refunded in the latter year and amounting to thirteen hundred and six dollars. Congress passed an act for the relief of Cogswell & Company in 1897, on learning of which the heirs of John C. Cogswell set up a claim to one-half the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State ex rel. Hospes v. BranchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Hines v. Mullins ex rel. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- In re Estate of Glover & ShepleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Bates v. WilliamsIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Cunningham v. JacobsIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.