McCutcheon v. Sigerson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Defendants in error pleaded the following plea in bar of writ: The defendants come and say, in bar and preclusion of the said writ of error, that the said plaintiffs in error the same ought not to have and maintain, because they say that after the rendition of the judgment in this cause by the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, and before the impetration of the said writ of error, to-wit, on the 5th day of April, 1858, the said…
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Defendants in error pleaded the following plea in bar of writ: The defendants come and say, in bar and preclusion of the said writ of error, that the said plaintiffs in error the same ought not to have and maintain, because they say that after the rendition of the judgment in this cause by the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, and before the impetration of the said writ of error, to-wit, on the 5th day of April, 1858, the said defendants in error assigned the said judgment, and all their right, title, and interest therein, to one George B. Sanderson,…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
In this case the defendants in error have pleaded a plea in this court, whereby they in substance aver, that since the recovery of the judgment in which it is alleged the error exists, the plaintiff in error by his certain deed released the said errors to which the plaintiff has replied, and the defendants have demurred to the replication. The question for our consideration is the sufficiency of the replication. The replication attempts to explain the scope and meaning of the deed, and to show that its provisions did not embrace the matter in controversy; but it does not affect to deny that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Trapp v. OffIllinois Supreme Court · 1901