Forrester v. Scoville

51 Mo. 268
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJanuary 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 51 Mo. 268 (Forrester v. Scoville) 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
Forrester v. Scoville, 51 Mo. 268 (Mo. 1873).

Opinion

Sherwood, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This action is in the nature of a suit in chancery, brought by plaintiff to divest defendant of title to Lot é, Block él, in the first addition to the City of Lexington, and vest the same in said Emogene E. Forrester, by whom the plaintiffs claim the money was furnished with which said lot was bought.

Upon issues submitted' to a jury, embracing the facts as to the ownership of the money, a verdict was had in favor of plaintiffs, and thereupon the Court entered a decree as prayed in the petition.

I have examined with care the testimony in the cause and am satified from such examination, that the evidence greatly preponderates in favor of the defendant, and fully supports the denial contained in his answer, that the plaintiff, Emogene E. Forrester, was the owner of the purchase money expended for the lot in question.

[269]*269But even had the testimony preponderated on the side of the plaintiffs, it would not have been sufficient to have warranted a decree in their favor, unless of a character so clear, definite and positive, as to leave no room or reasonable ground for hesitancy in the mind of the Chancellor, as to the ownership of the money. (Johnson et al., vs. Quarles et al. 46 Mo., 423, and cases cited.)

The Decree of the Court below'is reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Judge Vories not sitting. The other Judges concur.

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

Related

Glynn v. Glynn
291 S.W.2d 190 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1956)
Bogad v. Wachter
283 S.W.2d 609 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1955)
Ferguson v. Robinson
167 S.W. 447 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
Woolsey v. Haynes
165 F. 391 (Eighth Circuit, 1908)
Smith v. Smith
100 S.W. 579 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
McKee v. Higbee
79 S.W. 407 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1904)
Treat v. Russell
128 F. 847 (Eighth Circuit, 1904)
Viers v. Viers
75 S.W. 395 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1903)
Mulock v. Mulock
57 S.W. 122 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Curd v. Brown
49 S.W. 990 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Reed v. Painter
31 S.W. 919 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
Leahey v. Witte
27 S.W. 402 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Steinberg v. Phœnix Insurance
49 Mo. App. 255 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Taylor v. Von Schraeder
107 Mo. 206 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
Allen v. Logan
96 Mo. 591 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Keiser v. Gammon
95 Mo. 217 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
Philpot v. Penn
91 Mo. 38 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Berry v. Hartzell
91 Mo. 132 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Jackson v. Wood
88 Mo. 76 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Rogers v. Rogers
87 Mo. 257 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Mo. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrester-v-scoville-mo-1873.