Imboden v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Petitioner was a competent witness in her own behalf. Petitioner was offered as a witness on the trial to prove her status and the fact of her marriage with Mr. Imboden; and wa-s excluded by the court. Under the statute to show the marriage, petitioner is a competent witness to prove the fact of her marriage with deceased. Marriage is a status.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Petitioner was a competent witness in her own behalf. Petitioner was offered as a witness on the trial to prove her status and the fact of her marriage with Mr. Imboden; and wa-s excluded by the court. Under the statute to show the marriage, petitioner is a competent witness to prove the fact of her marriage with deceased. Marriage is a status. Marriage itself, and a proceeding to establish or annul it, is a proceeding in rem. It is in this sense a matter dehors the statute, not covered by its intention. Ellison v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
(after stating the facts). — 1. The first error assigned is the ruling of the court that the appellant was not a competent witness to prove the contract of marriage. It appears that pending the proceedings in the probate court depositions were taken and among them the deposition of the appellant. In respect to this deposition the parties entered into the following stipulation, as is shown by the appellant’s abstract:
“It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the said deposition may be taken down, .....and may be used and read as evidence in behalf of the petitioner in…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Hynes v. . McDermottNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Gall v. . GallNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Jackson v. HardinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- In re Estate of SoulardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Barnum v. BarnumCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Michler v. Krey Packing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Osmak v. American Car & Foundry Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- Bishop v. Brittain Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Jones v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Coleman v. JamesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.