Irvine v. Leyh
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge. (1) The respondents are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their petition, if appellant acted in good faith and honestly obtained the judgment sought to be set aside. Payne v. O’Shea, 84 Mo. 129 ; McGindley v. Newton, 75 Mo. 115; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 269 ; Acock v. Acock, 57 Mo. 154; Carolus v. Koch, 72 Mo. 647; Bank v. Hughes, 10 Mo. App. 11; Lavender v. Boaz, 17 111. 421: Zellerbach d.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Edwards, Judge. (1) The respondents are not entitled to the relief prayed for in their petition, if appellant acted in good faith and honestly obtained the judgment sought to be set aside. Payne v. O’Shea, 84 Mo. 129 ; McGindley v. Newton, 75 Mo. 115; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 269 ; Acock v. Acock, 57 Mo. 154; Carolus v. Koch, 72 Mo. 647; Bank v. Hughes, 10 Mo. App. 11; Lavender v. Boaz, 17 111. 421: Zellerbach d. Allenberg, 67 Cal. 296 ; Freeman ■on Judgments [3 Ed.] secs. 489, 493. (2) The petition is fatally defective in not stating th¿ facts…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
— The plaintiffs, Adam, Sallie and Laura Irvine, Duff Brown and two married women and their husbands brought this suit against Ferdinand Leyh to set aside a judgment rendered in an attachment suit, and to cancel a sheriff’s deed based upon the judgment, *203conveying to Leyli fifty-two acres of land in St. Charles county.
The trial resulted in a decree for plaintiffs. There is a count in ejectment, but it need not be. considered, as the case turns upon the equity branch.
Leyh commenced the suit by attachment against the present plaintiffs in the St. Charles circuit court on August 10,1875, and…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. KirbySupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Fusz v. SpaunhorstSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Riddick v. WalshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- People ex rel. Decatur & State Line Railway Co. v. McRobertsIllinois Supreme Court · 1871
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Parsons v. WeisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Dorrance v. DorranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- City of Joplin v. Joplin Water Works CompanySupreme Court of Missouri · 1965
- Dunlap v. SteereCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Lindell Real Estate Co. v. LindellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.