Sone ex rel. Road District No. 11 v. Wallendorp

85 S.W. 592, 187 Mo. 1, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 244
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 28, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 85 S.W. 592 (Sone ex rel. Road District No. 11 v. Wallendorp) 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
Sone ex rel. Road District No. 11 v. Wallendorp, 85 S.W. 592, 187 Mo. 1, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 244 (Mo. 1905).

Opinion

FOX, J.

— This is a suit brought before a justice of the peace for the recovery of a certain delinquent poll tax claimed to he due from the appellant to the plaintiff, for the use of Road District No. 11.

On the twentieth of July, 1903, the plaintiff filed with the justice a back taxbill, reproduced on the next page, as the basis or statement of his cause of action.

“A summons was issued returnable on the eighth, day of August, 1903, at which time the parties to the suit appear, and the case was continued to the fifteenth day of August, 1903; on that day the following entry appears: /Now on this fifteenth day of August, 1903, the plaintiff and defendant both appeared and the justice proceeded to hear the evidence, and after hearing all the evidence the cause was by consent of parties continued to August 17, 1903. Now on this seventeenth day of August, 1903, the plaintiff appeared in person and the defendant by his attorney, W. S. Pope, Esq., and by consent of parties the cause was again continued and set for August 18, 1903. Now on this eighteenth day of August, 1903, the prlaintiff and the defendant, by his attorney, appeared, when the plaintiff asked leave to amend the taxbill filed for suit by interlineation, inserting therein, and adding thereto the words in writ[7]*7ing on the second line after the word Missouri, and before the words, ‘‘Do hereby certify,’’ as follows: “To the úse of Road District No. 11,” which was granted by the justice, and the justice having duly considered all the evidence, does find for the plaintiff, in the sum of four dollars. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the justice that the plaintiff do recover of the defendant the said sum of four dollars, and also his cost in this behalf expended, taxed $3.75, and that he have execution therefor.’ ”

[6]*6

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

Related

Bart S. Adams Tire Co. v. Fuller
220 S.W. 976 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
State ex rel. Perkins v. Long
204 S.W. 914 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1918)
Whiteaker v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.
160 S.W. 1009 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Rollison v. Wabash Railroad
160 S.W. 994 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Kane v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
157 S.W. 644 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
Hatch v. Bayless
146 S.W. 839 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)
Herrick v. Maness
127 S.W. 394 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Jarrett v. Mohan
126 S.W. 212 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Barnes v. City of St. Joseph
123 S.W. 541 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
State ex rel. Hadley v. Adkins
119 S.W. 1091 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
Lynch v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.
106 S.W. 68 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh
103 S.W. 1078 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State ex rel. Brown v. McIntosh
103 S.W. 1071 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
Davis v. Montgomery
103 S.W. 979 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.W. 592, 187 Mo. 1, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sone-ex-rel-road-district-no-11-v-wallendorp-mo-1905.