Wall v. Nay
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. It is sufficient to state, in addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the court, that at the same term at which Winsor was permitted to come in and file his answer, the plaintiff admitted the facts stated therein, and the cause was submitted to the court and judgment rendered for plaintiff. I. The plaintiff showed no cause why an order of publication should be made against Nay.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court. It is sufficient to state, in addition to the facts stated in the opinion of the court, that at the same term at which Winsor was permitted to come in and file his answer, the plaintiff admitted the facts stated therein, and the cause was submitted to the court and judgment rendered for plaintiff. I. The plaintiff showed no cause why an order of publication should be made against Nay. (R. C. 1855, p. 1222-4.) The plaintiff can not, under leave of court to file an amended petition, file one containing the original cause of action, and also other, different,…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
The sixth section of the act concerning mortgages provides that “ any person claiming an interest in the mortgaged property may, on motion, be made defendant to any such proceedings, and may answer in avoidance or bar of the deed, or debt or damages, and issue shall be made and tried as in ordinary civil actions.” Under this section the appellant, Winsor — who purchased the mortgaged premises after the commencement of this suit against Nay, the mortgagor — and Durst, the occupant of the land, was permitted to come in and defend. The suit had been progressing for upwards of eighteen months…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Boatmen's National Bank v. FleddermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Christopher & Simpson Architectural Iron & Foundry Co. v. KellyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Bates v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871