Crosley v. Hutton

98 Mo. 196
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 98 Mo. 196 (Crosley v. Hutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crosley v. Hutton, 98 Mo. 196 (Mo. 1889).

Opinion

Ray, C. J.

— This is an action of ejectment for the lands described, the petition being in the statutory form, and the answer one of general denial. The case is here on an agreed record, from which it appears, among other things, that the plaintiffs are the sole heirs-at-law of one Henry Crosley, who is the common source of title, and who died intestate in the year 1875. Defendants read in evidence a tax deed from the sheriff of Vernon county (under proceedings commenced in 1878) and which is conceded to be in due form and good on its face.

It is conceded and agreed, and the court so found, that the defendant Henry Crosley, against whom the tax suit was brought, and against whom judgment was rendered therein, and under whom defendants claim title, was dead at the time the said tax suit was brought and for that reason among others, the court held that said judgment was a nullity and gave judgment accordingly for plaintiffs. This is a sufficient statement of the case. It is well settled that judgment in a suit begun, and prosecuted against a dead man, is void as to him, and those claiming under him. Williams v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 524; Bollinger v. Chouteau, 20 Mo. 89. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the affidavit for the order of publication, and the questions urged in that behalf, for whether the affidavit is good or bad the result must be the same.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

All concur except Sherwood, J., absent.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Wilkins v. King
189 S.W.2d 981 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1945)
State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Trimble
274 S.W. 1075 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1925)
Poupore v. Stone-Ordean-Wells Co.
157 N.W. 648 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Rothenberger v. Garrett
123 S.W. 574 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
State ex rel. Potter v. Riley
118 S.W. 647 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Wren v. Scales
119 S.W. 879 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1909)
Shea v. Shea
55 S.W. 869 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Hinkle v. Kerr
49 S.W. 864 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Wolf v. Brown
44 S.W. 733 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
Jaicks v. Sullivan
30 S.W. 890 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Greenstreet v. Thornton
27 L.R.A. 735 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1895)
Craven v. Bradley
51 Kan. 336 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1893)
Graves v. Ewart
99 Mo. 13 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 Mo. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosley-v-hutton-mo-1889.