Workman v. Warder
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court, Hon. Richard Field, Judge. I. The court erred in refusing instruction number six on the part of plaintiff. The defendant expressly stated, on cross-examination, that he relied solely and exclusively upon the provisions of the stock law for all claims or lien to the stock in controversy, and the evidence failed to show any comjjliance with the provisions of that law, but, on the contrary, did show that he had not complied therewith.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court, Hon. Richard Field, Judge. I. The court erred in refusing instruction number six on the part of plaintiff. The defendant expressly stated, on cross-examination, that he relied solely and exclusively upon the provisions of the stock law for all claims or lien to the stock in controversy, and the evidence failed to show any comjjliance with the provisions of that law, but, on the contrary, did show that he had not complied therewith. Harriman v. Titus, 3 Mo. 302; Crook v. PeeMy, 8 Mo. 344; Storms v. White, 23 Mo. App. 31; Session Acts of 1883, 26, 27, 28,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of replevin for cattle, begun before a justice of the peace. Defendant prevailed below and plaintiff appeals. Plaintiff ’ s evidence tended to prove his ownership of the property and that he was entitled to the immediate possession thereof. The defendant undertook to justify his detention of the property under the stray law. The trial court’s rulings were against defendant on this branch of the case, and it is conceded that the case for defendant failed to show a compliance with the provisions of that law. There was also evidence for defendant tending to show that after the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fairman v. FluckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1836
- Phillips v. MongesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Babb v. TalcottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Peterson v. HaightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by9 opinions
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. HillMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Citizens State Bank v. First National BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
- Riss Company, Inc. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- Marks v. Frigidaire Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1931
- Maxwell v. BoydMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.