Maloney v. Neville
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Appellant did not have possession, actual or constructive, of the diamonds at any time after he had them set in a Anger ring and gave the ring to his wife, which was a few months after he got them and two years before this suit was brought.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) Appellant did not have possession, actual or constructive, of the diamonds at any time after he had them set in a Anger ring and gave the ring to his wife, which was a few months after he got them and two years before this suit was brought. Both Dr. and Mrs. Neville as witnesses for plaintiff positively testify repeatedly that she alone owned and had possession of the ring from the time it was given her. R. S. 1899, sec. 3917; Penn v. Brashaer, 65 Mo. App. 24; Meyers v. Lingenfelter, 81 Mo. App. 251; Gulath v.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
This is a replevin action and was originally instituted before a justice of the peace against appellant E. J. Neville and Mrs. Neville, his wife. The property demanded is one pair of diamond earrings. *618The trial before the justice resulted in favor of plaintiff against both Dr. Neville and his wife, and it was adjudged plaintiff was- entitled to the possession of the diamonds or their value, less $135 which Dr. Neville had paid for them under circumstances to be related. Dr. Neville alone took an appeal to the circuit court, where the case was retried and judgment rendered March 4, 1907, in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Penn v. BrashearMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
- Myers v. Lingenfelter & HudsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
3Cited by3 opinions
- Menke v. RovinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1944
- Stanton v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- Petty v. BorgUtah Supreme Court · 1944