City of Mexico v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of Mexico v. Jones

27 Mo. App. 534, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 60

DecidedNovember 7, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Mo. App. 534 (City of Mexico v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Mexico v. Jones, 27 Mo. App. 534, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellison, J.

Defendant was arrested for obstructing an alley in the city of Mexico, contrary to the ordinances of said city. He was found not guilty in the recorder’s court, and on the city’s appeal to the circuit court, a demurrer to the evidence was sustained, and the city again appeals. The alley, as dedicated on the plat, was one running east and west through the block. The alley claimed to be obstructed by defendant runs north and south. This north and south alley the city attempted to establish at the trial, by proof of dedication, as well as by user. We are of the opinion that the city failed to make out a case under either theory. Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 554; State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334.

If the whole testimony shows that, though a verdict be rendered for plaintiff, it would not be allowed to stand, the court should sustain a demurrer and take the case from the jury. Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469, 476; Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 80, 83; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 294. The evidence in this case does not show a dedication by the owner. Nor does it show a use of the alley by the public, as a highway, with the acquiescence of the owner for a sufficient length of time to make it a public way by user.

The judgment,

with the concurrence of the other judges,

is affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellison, J.

Defendant was arrested for obstructing an alley in the city of Mexico, contrary to the ordinances of said city. He was found not guilty in the recorder’s court, and on the city’s appeal to the circuit court, a demurrer to the evidence was sustained, and the city again appeals. The alley, as dedicated on the plat, was one running east and west through the block. The alley claimed to be obstructed by defendant runs north and south. This north and south alley the city attempted to establish at the trial, by proof of dedication, as well as by user. We are of the opinion that the city failed to make out a case under either theory. Landis v. Hamilton, 77 Mo. 554; State v. Proctor, 90 Mo. 334.

If the whole testimony shows that, though a verdict be rendered for plaintiff, it would not be allowed to stand, the court should sustain a demurrer and take the case from the jury. Morgan v. Durfee, 69 Mo. 469, 476; Powell v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 80, 83; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 294. The evidence in this case does not show a dedication by the owner. Nor does it show a use of the alley by the public, as a highway, with the acquiescence of the owner for a sufficient length of time to make it a public way by user.

The judgment,

with the concurrence of the other judges,

is affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Mo. App. 534, 1887 Mo. App. LEXIS 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-mexico-v-jones-moctapp-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack