Mitchel ex rel. v. Tinsley
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. (1) Plaintiff admits tbat there was no change of possession of the lumber from Cawthon to him; that Cawth'on “just showed him the lumber and gave him the bill of sale.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Riley, Judge. (1) Plaintiff admits tbat there was no change of possession of the lumber from Cawthon to him; that Cawth'on “just showed him the lumber and gave him the bill of sale.” Plaintiff exercised no acts of ■ dominion or ownership over the lumber, at any time, nor did he at any time, either before or after the levy of the execution, assume that open, notorious, continuous and unequivocal possession required by law. Plaintiff’s alléged title to the lumber, was, therefore, void as to Tinsley, the execution creditor. R. S. 1889, sec.…
1Opinion of the Court
BOND, J.-
This suit is upon a bond given to a constable by an execution plaintiff upon a claim of ownership to *588the property- seized by tbe officer made by a third party. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff. The obligors in tbe bond appealed.
The first error assigned is that tbe record does not show that tbe bond sued upon was introduced in evidence on tbe trial. It was set out according to its legal tenor and effect in tbe petition, and a copy of it was annexed thereto as an exhibit. Under tbe statute governing pleadings where tbe action or defense is founded upon a written…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kuykendall ex rel. Middleton, Perry & Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- George T. Smith Middlings Purifier Co. v. RembaughMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- Revercomb ex rel. Swift v. DukerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Chitwood v. Lanyon Zinc Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902