Davis v. Akers
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge. Plaintiff must maintain his suit wholly on the strength of his claim. The descriptive clause of his mortgage is indefinite in that it does not specify the year in which the crops are “to be grown,” nor otherwise designate any particular crops which may be claimed under it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Newton Circuit Court. — Hon. J. C. Lamson, Judge. Plaintiff must maintain his suit wholly on the strength of his claim. The descriptive clause of his mortgage is indefinite in that it does not specify the year in which the crops are “to be grown,” nor otherwise designate any particular crops which may be claimed under it. Pennington v. Jones, 57 Iowa, 37. The covenant by which Stockstill bound himself to cultivate the land for the defendant bank, for the considei’ation named in the lease, was reasonable and not repugnant to law or public policy. The crops grown upon the land…
1Opinion of the Court
Blaíto, P. J.
The plaintiff filed the following petition:
“In the circuit court of Newton county, Missouri.
T. W. Davis, plaintiff, ] vs. Frank Akers and Sam Cotter, and with Pierce City National Bank as voluntary—Defendants.
Replevin.
“Plaintiff above named states that by virtue of a chattel mortgage duly made, executed and recorded, from W. D. Stockstill, to plaintiff, and dated April 22nd, 1895, the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession, as against the above named defendants, of the personal property described as follows: The wheat that was grown upon, and which has been cut and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bell v. MulhollandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Tolman v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Mendez v. MurdockDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1949