Stone v. Malot
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Platte County. 1st. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by the plaintiff, for the following reasons, upon the supposition of facts contained in the plaintiff’s instructions, the jury are required to find for the plaintiff, which is erroneous— because, First, They are not required to find to be the fact: First, That the plaintiff was in possession at the time of the entry of the defendant; Second, That the defendant entered upon…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Platte County. 1st. The court erred in giving the instructions asked by the plaintiff, for the following reasons, upon the supposition of facts contained in the plaintiff’s instructions, the jury are required to find for the plaintiff, which is erroneous— because, First, They are not required to find to be the fact: First, That the plaintiff was in possession at the time of the entry of the defendant; Second, That the defendant entered upon the premises contrary to the will of the plaintiff; Third, That the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the Court by
Tompkins, Judge.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer commenced by Malot before a justice of the peace, against Stone. Malot got a judgment against Stone before the justice, and Stone appealed to the circuit court, where judgment being given against him, he appealed to this court. After the judgment of the circuit court, appears this entry: “The defendant files his bill of exceptions, which is signed, sealed and made part of the court.” There is no signature of the judge after those words, nor is there any thing preceding them, betwixt them and the judgment…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Silvey v. SummerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Alexander v. WestcottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Dilworth v. FeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Graham v. ConwayMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902