Allen v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — ^Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The action should have been brought in Wayne county. The pleas to the jurisdiction were good defenses, upon every hypothesis as to what are the objects of the action. Brown v. Woody, 64 Mo. 547; Smith v. Simpson, 80 Mo. 634; Nenies v. Debertshauser, 1 Mo. App. 402; Werz v. Werz, 11 Mo. App'. 26; Sedalia v. Railroad, 17 Mo. App. 105; Stern, etc., Co. v. Mason, 16,Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — ^Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. The action should have been brought in Wayne county. The pleas to the jurisdiction were good defenses, upon every hypothesis as to what are the objects of the action. Brown v. Woody, 64 Mo. 547; Smith v. Simpson, 80 Mo. 634; Nenies v. Debertshauser, 1 Mo. App. 402; Werz v. Werz, 11 Mo. App'. 26; Sedalia v. Railroad, 17 Mo. App. 105; Stern, etc., Co. v. Mason, 16,Mo. App. 473; Thompson v. Branson, 17 Mo. App. 456. This is not modified by the statute of 1887, page 229, — the language being, “ shall be brought where…
1Opinion of the CourtRombatjek, P. J.
The plaintiffs brought an action of replevin against the defendant railway company, and, upon an order of delivery issued by the court, took from the possession •of the railway company four carloads of oak lumber, which they claimed as their property. The plaintiffs thereafter filed their amended petition stating that ■George Bates and Piety Bates claimed title to the lumber, and were necessary parties to the complete determination of the suit, and asked for a summons to be issued against said George and Piety Bates, to Wayne •county, Missouri, where such defendants resided. George and Piety…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Huxley v. HarroldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Magrew v. FosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Carter v. ArbuthnotSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Thompson v. BronsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885