Cargile v. Wood
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlpjpeal from Jackson Circuit Court0 I. The court erred in holding the burden of proof to be on these defendants for two reasons : First, plaintiffs allege that they are the only heirs of Augustus Cargile, and this is denied; and again, because by the pleadings it is admitted that the child was born of the said Augustus and Cynthia.
Read the full summary
Jlpjpeal from Jackson Circuit Court0 I. The court erred in holding the burden of proof to be on these defendants for two reasons : First, plaintiffs allege that they are the only heirs of Augustus Cargile, and this is denied; and again, because by the pleadings it is admitted that the child was born of the said Augustus and Cynthia. It is always held that when it is shown that a child was born of the alleged parents, the presumption is that it is legitimate— in favor of innocence — and it devolves upon those who aver illegitimacy to prove it; with much more force does this rule apply when the…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a suit in partition brought by Chas. Cargile and eight others against Walter H. Wood and five others of his brothers and sisters, for the partition of lands in Jackson county and Kansas City.
The petition alleged that Augustus Cargile died on the 10th day of December, 1862, intestate, seized of the property, and that the plaintiffs and defendants were his brothers and sisters, and descendants of such brothers and sisters, and that they were his only heirs at law.
Afterwards Robert H. Kilgore and several other parties, who were the brothers and sisters and descendants of other brothers…
2Cited by37 opinions
- Michler v. Krey Packing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Dyer v. BrannockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Davidson v. Unknown Heirs of PetersonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1912
- Bishop v. Brittain Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.