Shipp v. Klinger
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The act, declaring this plaintiff of age, was not a legislative enactment, but a judicial decree, and therefore void. . (4 N. H., 572; State vs. Fry, 4 Mo., 120; Dartmouth Ool. vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 518; Blackw. Tax Titles 25-30; Bryson vs. Campbell, 12 Mo., 498; Bryson vs. Bryson, 17 Mo., 590; 4 West.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The act, declaring this plaintiff of age, was not a legislative enactment, but a judicial decree, and therefore void. . (4 N. H., 572; State vs. Fry, 4 Mo., 120; Dartmouth Ool. vs. Woodward, 4 Wheat., 518; Blackw. Tax Titles 25-30; Bryson vs. Campbell, 12 Mo., 498; Bryson vs. Bryson, 17 Mo., 590; 4 West. Law J., 337; Jones vs. Perry, 10 Yerg., 59; Keith vs. Ware, 2 Yer., 174; Lyman vs. Mower, 2 Yer;, 517; Kendall vs. Dodge, 3 Yer., 360; Ed ware vs. Pope, 3 Scam., 465; Lane vs. Dorman, 3 Scam., 238; Sedg. Const. & Stat. Law, 166-176 and cases cited.) I.…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a petition in ejectment to recover the possession of a tract of land lying in St. Charles county, and the only question presented for our consideration involves the constitutionality of an act of the legislature.
By the record it is shown, that the land in controversy belonged to the plaintiff, and that in 1864, when she was in her eighteenth year, an act of the legislature was passed declaring her of lawful age and legally competent to transact her own business. (Acts 1864, p. 392.) In accordance with this act she sold and conveyed the land to the defendant. It is •now insisted, that…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Thomas v. PullisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Cargile v. FernaldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Clusky v. BurnsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Whittelsey v. ConniffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- Garth v. ArnoldCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.