Madkins v. Trice

65 Mo. 656
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1877·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Hough, J.

This was an action under the statute in relation to the claim and delivery of personal property, instituted before a justice of the peace. The affidavit of plaintiff omitted to state that the property claimed “had not been seized under any process, execution, or attachment against the property of the plaintiff'.” On appeal to the circuit court, the affidavit was amended and the omission supplied. Since the trial of this cause by the circuit court, it has been expressly decided by this court in the case of Gist v. Boring, 60 Mo. 487, that such an amendment cannot be made after appeal to the circuit court. The judgment, which was' for the plaintiff must therefore be reversed, and the suit be dismissed.

All concur except Judge Henry, not sitting.

Reversed.

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

Madkins v. Trice, 65 Mo. 656 (Mo. 1877).

65 Mo. 656 (Madkins v. Trice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gibson v. Ball
141 S.W. 23 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Short v. Morrison
130 S.W. 78 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Union Brewing Co. v. Ehlhardt
120 S.W. 1193 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
Dowdy v. Wamble
19 S.W. 489 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
Corrigan v. Morris
43 Mo. App. 456 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Dowdy v. Womble
41 Mo. App. 573 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1890)
Crum v. Elliston
33 Mo. App. 591 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Dollman v. Munson
90 Mo. 85 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1886)
Frederick v. Tiffin
22 Mo. App. 443 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)