Bailey v. Lindsay
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leeoy B. Yalliant, Judge. The amended petition states a cause of action. R. S. 1879, sec. 3511; Bliss Code PI. [2 Ed.] sec. 229; Pars.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Leeoy B. Yalliant, Judge. The amended petition states a cause of action. R. S. 1879, sec. 3511; Bliss Code PI. [2 Ed.] sec. 229; Pars. Cont., sec. 501. The trial court seemed to think that there could be no recovery in this case because plaintiffs’ right to recover rested upon the validity of the lease, and that this being void because of the fact that the wife did not join with the husband therein, there was no valid contract between the parties and therefore there could be no recovery. This position I submit is wholly untenable. It is not…
1Opinion of the CourtRombaueb, P. J.
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment upon demurrer to their petition, and the only point, presented by their appeal, is whether their petition states any legal cause of action against defendant.
The petition states in substance the following facts: The plaintiffs are stationers and printers, and the defendant is the husband of Jane Lindsay and was in February, 1887, in possession of certain real estate in the city of St. Louis belonging to his wife, in his own right, there having been issue born alive of his marriage with said Jane.
That the defendant being so in possession agreed with the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mueller v. KaessmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Gray v. DrydenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Gideon v. HughesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
- State v. BishopMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886