Legal Opinion

Fordyce v. Hathorn

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1874PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Error to Gole Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge

This was an action commenced under tlie landlord and tenant act, by attachment, for the recovery of rent payable in kind. Tlie cause was tried on an amended petition.

The defendant, in the same answer, setup matter in abatement of tlie attachment and also defenses in bar of tlie action.

The court on motion of plaintiff struck out tlie matter in abatement. In this we think there was no error. Where matters in abatement and bar are-contained in the same answer, the. matter in abatement is waived, by the defenses in bar. (Cannon vs. McManus, 17 Mo., 345; Rippstein vs. St. Louis Mat. Life Ins. Co.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lush v. DruseNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  2. Cannon v. McManusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
  3. Sheldon v. SkinnerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
  4. Van Rensselaer v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1848

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Little v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
  2. Nichols v. StevensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
  3. Moody v. DeutschSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
  4. Coombs Commission Co. v. BlockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
  5. House v. LewisNebraska Supreme Court · 1922

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API