Crook v. Peebly
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Morgan Circuit Court. 1. The Circuit Court erred in giving the instructions asked for by the plaintiff, and in refusing the first instruction asked for by the defendants.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Morgan Circuit Court. 1. The Circuit Court erred in giving the instructions asked for by the plaintiff, and in refusing the first instruction asked for by the defendants. (The Statute of 1835, concerning strays, makes it the duty of the Secretary of State to select and contract with one printer on each side of the Missouri River to print advertisements of strays, and requires the clerks of the county courts to furnish the printer with the proper papers for advertisement, and to account with the printer for publishing the same. The law of 1825 required the taker up of an estray to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action of trover, brought by Peebly, against Crook and Thurston, for a horse, the property of Peebly, taken up by Thurston as a stray, and sold to Crook. On the trial, Peebly had a verdict and judgment.
The court below directed the jury, that it was necessary for the defendants, in order to show property in themselves, to prove that notice of the taking up of the horse as a stray had been published in some newspaper authorised to publish the same by law. This direction was excepted to, and the defendants moved the court to instruct the jury, that in order to show property in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Wingate v. WoodsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Moore v. HensleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915