Graves' Administrator v. Poage
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. The court erred in refusing the first and second instructions asked by plaintiff. It is insisted that this is the true rule, and that there is nothing in this case to prevent its application to the respondent. It was the duty of the respondent to deliver the property of the deceased to the proper tribunal or officer nearest where it was found in California, to be held and transmitted to the domiciliary representative according to law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court. The court erred in refusing the first and second instructions asked by plaintiff. It is insisted that this is the true rule, and that there is nothing in this case to prevent its application to the respondent. It was the duty of the respondent to deliver the property of the deceased to the proper tribunal or officer nearest where it was found in California, to be held and transmitted to the domiciliary representative according to law. Poage not only did right, but it was his duty to bring the'gold of the deceased to Missouri. If a person dies, leaving…
1Opinion of the CourtGamble, Judge
Graves, the intestate, and Poage, the defendant, together with the brother of Poage, were at work in California, digging for gold in a common adventure, and sharing their gains. They lived together in a tent, in a wild, unsettled part of that country. They were all citizens of Monroe county, in this state, and had not changed their domicil. Graves became sick, and received all the attention which the condition of the Poages admitted, and when he died, he was interred by them. A physician had been procured to visit him. Upon his death, he left in the tent occupied by himself and his…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rozelle v. HarmonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Swift v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- Mason v. St. Louis Union Stock Yards Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Hapgood Plow Co. v. Wabash Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1895