Robertson v. Drane
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. J. P. Strother, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving the second instruction for the plaintiff. It singles out a particular fact or part of the testimony to the exclusion of the rest. Ptorcell v. Lewis, 8 Mo. App. 593; Kaizer «. Ins. Co., 7 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. J. P. Strother, Judge. (1) The court erred in giving the second instruction for the plaintiff. It singles out a particular fact or part of the testimony to the exclusion of the rest. Ptorcell v. Lewis, 8 Mo. App. 593; Kaizer «. Ins. Co., 7 Mo. App. 579; Kendig v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 207. It assumes the fact of the survey of the east line of the northeast quarter of the section in question, and establishing of the southeast corner of the east half by Kirtly, which was controverted. It assumes that Kirtly’s alleged survey and establishment, and marking the…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
This is an action in ejectment. The only question at issue being the correct location of the boundary line between plaintiff who is the owner of the east half of the northeast quarter of section 6, township 50, range 23, and the defendant who is the owner of the east half of the southeast quarter of the same section.
The jury returned the following verdict: “We the jury find for the plaintiff, and find that the Ross survey is the correct line, being seven and nine feet south of the hedge as shown by the evidence, and also give one cent damages to the plaintiff.” Upon this verdict the court…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Hecker v. BleishSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
- Tillman v. HutchersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
- Carroz v. KaminiskiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1971
- Albi v. ReedSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
- Hartman v. MuehlebachMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.