Parkyne v. Churchill
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Wriglit Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox„ Judge. It is impossible to know from the manner in which the so-called abstract has been prepared, what is record proper and what is, or was, matters preserved by exception.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wriglit Circuit Court. — Hon. Argus Cox„ Judge. It is impossible to know from the manner in which the so-called abstract has been prepared, what is record proper and what is, or was, matters preserved by exception. Jackson v. Bolt & Nnt Co., 238 Mo. 657; Owens v. Mathews, 226 Mo. 77; Kolokas v. Railroad, 223 Mo. 461; Wallace v. Libby, 231 Mo. 341; Barnham v. Shelton, 211 Mo. 66; Clay v. Wholesale Co., 200 Mo. 637; Keeton v. Weber, 233 Mo. 691; Pngsley v. Cooperage Co., 154 Mo. App. 386.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, P. J.
By a petition first filed in this canse, plaintiff, in a single count, sought to have the circuit court ascertain and determine her title to two certain blocks in the town of Mountain Grove, Wright county, Missouri. Whilst title was claimed by adverse possession for ten years, the action should be properly denominated one under old section 650. Later the petition was amended by the addition of another count, setting up facts constituting a resulting trust, but followed with a prayer, as under old section 650, to ascertain and determine the interests of plaintiff and defendants in and to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Carder v. Fabius River Drainage District No. 3Supreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Walls v. TinsleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915