Mulrooney v. O'Bear
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. The court erred in rejecting the testimony in reference to transactions between defendant O’Bear and Phil. Chew in reference to sale of property purchased by Chew. High on Inj. [8Ed.],sees.748,1549,p.1178; Kerr onInj.l2Ed.],sec. 25, p. 25; Michael v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 610; 7 Am. and Eng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. The court erred in rejecting the testimony in reference to transactions between defendant O’Bear and Phil. Chew in reference to sale of property purchased by Chew. High on Inj. [8Ed.],sees.748,1549,p.1178; Kerr onInj.l2Ed.],sec. 25, p. 25; Michael v. St. Louis, 112 Mo. 610; 7 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 18 et seq. and cases cited; Midland L. Co. v. Kruger, 52 Mo. 418; Longworth v. Aslin, 106 Mo. 155; Pelkinton v. Ins. Co., 55 Mo. 172. Plaintiff’s deed conveyed the Plodiamont Company’s full title to the water and sewer…
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE BIGGS.
In 1891 the Hodiamont Realty Company owned ten acres of land immediately west of the western limits of the city of St. Louis and situate in St. Louis county. There were two small tracts between this land and the city. The land is now known as the “Hodiamont subdivision,” the company having subsequently (to wit in the spring of 1892) divided it into lots and streets. Two strips of land extending north and south from Maple avenue through the' subdivision and *479designated as alleys in the majority opinion, were reserved from sale by the realty company and were not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrett v. BellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884