McPike v. West

71 Mo. 199
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1879
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 71 Mo. 199 (McPike v. West) 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
McPike v. West, 71 Mo. 199 (Mo. 1879).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was a suit to enjoin the defendants from unlawfully opening a road over the premises of plaintiff, and from cutting his timber and hedges and removing his fences for that purpose, thereby exposing his crops and fruit trees and meadows and pasture lands to the depredations of stock of all kinds. A temporary injunction was granted by the judge of the probate court under the seventeenth section of the act of 1873, (Session Acts, 1873, p. 170), it appearing from the affidavit of the plaintiff' that the circuit court of the county was not in session, and that the judge of said court was not within the county. Some informalities attended the approval of the bond by the probate judge. At the hearing in the circuit court the injunction was’made perpetual. As the petition was regularly filed with the circuit clerk and the circuit court took cognizance of the cause and tried the same, and rendered a final judgment therein, the regularity of the preliminary proceedings is not material, and it will, therefore, not be necessary to notice the various objections thereto made by the defendant. The petition states a good cause of action. In addition to the injury threatened, it alleges the insolv[200]*200ency of all the defendants save the road overseers. No allegation of insolvency was necessary, however, as the facts stated show that the injury threatened would have been irreparable, within the legal definition of that term. McKinzie v. Mathews, 59 Mo. 99; Carpenter v. Grisham, 59 Mo. 247; State Savings Bank v. Kercheval, 65 Mo. 682. The testimony introduced on the trial was conflicting, but after carefully reviewing it, we are not prepared to say that the conclusion reached by the circuit court was wrong. The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Green v. Mutual Steel Company
108 So. 2d 837 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1959)
Sikes v. Turner
247 S.W. 803 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1923)
Carpenter v. City of St. Joseph
174 S.W. 53 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
Hatton v. Kansas City, Clinton & Springfield Railway Co.
162 S.W. 227 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Seafield v. Bohne
69 S.W. 1051 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Powell v. Canaday
69 S.W. 686 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Palmer v. Crisle
92 Mo. App. 510 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
Taylor v. Todd
48 Mo. App. 550 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Lakenan v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad Co.
36 Mo. App. 363 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
Lewis v. Town of North Kingstown
11 A. 173 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1887)
Turner v. Stewart
78 Mo. 480 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 Mo. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcpike-v-west-mo-1879.