Brooks v. Barth
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court. — Eon. David E. Eby, Judge. There was no evidence of a “distinct and formal admission that the law restraining swine from running at large was in force in Clark county,” as claimed by respondent. The record of the former trialsi and the entire case shows no such admission.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marion Circuit Court. — Eon. David E. Eby, Judge. There was no evidence of a “distinct and formal admission that the law restraining swine from running at large was in force in Clark county,” as claimed by respondent. The record of the former trialsi and the entire case shows no such admission. True, defendant’s son testified, over the objections of plaintiff, something about plaintiff’s counsel having admitted that this law had been adopted; but if that was true, it would - not bind plaintiff, at the retrial, where the issue was raised by pleading, for the first time. Murphy v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
Action of replevin for some hogs. The case originated in Clark county and went on change of venue to Marion county. The defense was that the hogs were running at large in violation of the stock law which was in force in the county. Plaintiff contends the *270stock law never had been legally adopted because notices had not been posted in three public places in each township for twenty days before the election; because the notices of the election lacked a week of being published as long as the statutes required and because the clerk had not spread the result of the election on the records of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brooks v. BarthMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903