Skillman v. Weber

Supreme Court of Missouri

Skillman v. Weber

165 S.W. 1057, 256 Mo. 324, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 415

DecidedApril 2, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.W. 1057 (Skillman v. Weber) 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

Skillman v. Weber, 165 S.W. 1057, 256 Mo. 324, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 415 (Mo. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

LAMM, J.

— Action to quiet title. Judgment for defendant.

The pleadings and facts in this case, in controlling features, are the same as in the companion case of Skillman et al. v. Clardy, ante, p. 297. There was here no common source of title agreed to as there was in the Clardy case. So, after the tax sale which in the Clardy case was held to cut up the title of plaintiffs’ ancestor, the chain of title of defendant Weber from the purchaser at the tax sale ran differently. But these differences are wholly unimportant. The opinion in the Clardy case, therefore, should be read with this and as disposing of material assignments of error, the two cases being argued together and taken as one for appellate purposes.

The maxims being that on equivalent facts the law is the same and the judgment is the same, and that it is proper to reason from similars to similars, the judgment herein should be affirmed on the authority of the Clardy case.

Let that be done.

All concur.

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

LAMM, J.

— Action to quiet title. Judgment for defendant.

The pleadings and facts in this case, in controlling features, are the same as in the companion case of Skillman et al. v. Clardy, ante, p. 297. There was here no common source of title agreed to as there was in the Clardy case. So, after the tax sale which in the Clardy case was held to cut up the title of plaintiffs’ ancestor, the chain of title of defendant Weber from the purchaser at the tax sale ran differently. But these differences are wholly unimportant. The opinion in the Clardy case, therefore, should be read with this and as disposing of material assignments of error, the two cases being argued together and taken as one for appellate purposes.

The maxims being that on equivalent facts the law is the same and the judgment is the same, and that it is proper to reason from similars to similars, the judgment herein should be affirmed on the authority of the Clardy case.

Let that be done.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W. 1057, 256 Mo. 324, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skillman-v-weber-mo-1914.