Watkins v. Green
Missouri Court of Appeals
Error to Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Riley, Judge. (1) The verdict of the jury is not responsive to the issues, and is not such as the law requires, because it fails to find the value of the defendant’s possession, or the special interest of the defendants therein. The verdict should have found defendant’s special interest, or the value of his possession. Dilworth v. McKelvey, 30 Mo. 149; Boutell v. Warne, -62 Mo. 354; Fulkerson v. Dinkins, 28 Mo.
Read the full summary
Error to Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Riley, Judge. (1) The verdict of the jury is not responsive to the issues, and is not such as the law requires, because it fails to find the value of the defendant’s possession, or the special interest of the defendants therein. The verdict should have found defendant’s special interest, or the value of his possession. Dilworth v. McKelvey, 30 Mo. 149; Boutell v. Warne, -62 Mo. 354; Fulkerson v. Dinkins, 28 Mo. App. 160; Clinton v. Stovall, 45 Mo. App. 642; Clarkson v. Jenkins, 48 Mo. App. 223; Barnes v. Rawlings, 74 Mo. App. 536; R. S. 1899,…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
The suit is in replevin begun before a justice of the peace where the plaintiff recovered judgment. Defendant appealed to the circuit court of Pemiscot county, where on a trial anew, verdict and judgment Were for him. Neither the transcript nor abstract filed shows that a bill of exceptions was ever filed, hence there is nothing before us for review, except the record proper. The record shows that on the second day of March, 1905, the issues were submitted to a jury who, after hearing the evidence, returned into court the following verdict:
“We, the jury, find that the defendant, D. E. Green,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Exchange Finance Co. v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1929