Stephens v. Hume

25 Mo. 349
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJuly 15, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 Mo. 349 (Stephens v. Hume) 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
Stephens v. Hume, 25 Mo. 349 (Mo. 1857).

Opinion

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This writ of error was prematurely sued out, as there was no final judgment in the cause. This was a proceeding in partition, and in such there are two judgments — the one interlocutory, and the other final. The first is quod partitio fiet inter partes de tenementis, upon which a writ or commission goes, commanding that partition be made; and upon the return of this writ or commission executed, if the proceedings are approved by the court, the second judgment is given quod partitio firma et stabilis in perpetuum teneatur. This is the principal judgment, and before it is given no writ of error does lie. (Gudgell & Austin v. Mead and others, 8 Mo. 55.) This writ must then be dismissed.

In the case of Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 54, it was held that the actual seizin of the wife was not necessary to entitle the husband to curtesy. (1 Hill, on Real Prop. 76, 77.) The permission given by the statute to the wife to remain in possession of her deceased husband’s mansion house, [351]*351and tbe messuages or plantation thereto belonging, does not affect the right to curtesy. Such possession is not adverse to the heirs of the husband. Writ dismissed;

Judge Ryland concurring; Judge Leonard absent.

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

Related

Skallberg v. Skallberg
121 N.W. 979 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1909)
Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson
48 Fla. 226 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Cox v. Boyce
54 S.W. 467 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
Martin v. Trail
43 S.W. 655 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
Mettler v. Miller
22 N.E. 529 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1889)
Todd v. Oviatt
7 L.R.A. 693 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1889)
Buller v. Linzee
100 Mo. 95 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
Ivory v. Delore
26 Mo. 505 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Mo. 349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-hume-mo-1857.