Echelkamp v. Schrader
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court below should have dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill. The answer disputes the respondent’s title. (Eden on Injunctions; Field v. Jackson, 2 Hick. 599; Pills-worth v. Hopton, 6 Yes. 51; Smith v. Collier, 8 Yes. 89; Hannon y.. Gardiner, 7 Yes.-305; Norway v. Rowe, 19 Yes. 144-7; Irvin v; Dixon, 9 How. 10, 28.) II. Even-if: respondent bad title, the-injunction slioüld have been dissolved.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The court below should have dissolved the injunction and dismissed the bill. The answer disputes the respondent’s title. (Eden on Injunctions; Field v. Jackson, 2 Hick. 599; Pills-worth v. Hopton, 6 Yes. 51; Smith v. Collier, 8 Yes. 89; Hannon y.. Gardiner, 7 Yes.-305; Norway v. Rowe, 19 Yes. 144-7; Irvin v; Dixon, 9 How. 10, 28.) II. Even-if: respondent bad title, the-injunction slioüld have been dissolved. The facts do not make a case of irremediable mischief. If appellant was a trespasser, respondent could have obtained-adequate-satisfaction in the…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
These parties, as the case finds, were adjoining land-owners, and derived title- from a common grantor. The line dividing their respective lots, as they supposed, passed through the center of a double house, one half of Avhich was believed by them to be on the plaintiff’s lot, and the other half on the defendant’s, thus furnishing to each party a connected, but independent, tenement. At the time the suit was brought, the plaintiff had been in peaceable possession of his lot and tenement some seventeen years. The house was a frame building, and was standing on the premises at the time of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Irwin v. DixionSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Jerome v. RossNew York Court of Chancery · 1823
- Falls Village Water Power Co. v. TibbettsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1862
- James v. DixonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1854
- Smith v. PettingillSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
3Cited by34 opinions
- Schmaltz v. York Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Ashurst v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
- Turner v. StewartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Carney v. HadleySupreme Court of Florida · 1893
- Hatton v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1913
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.