Meyer v. McCabe
| Decision Date | 31 October 1880 |
| Parties | MEYER v. MCCABE, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court.--HON. S. A. RICHARDSON, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
B. F. Lucas for appellants.
This was an action of trespass comenced originally before a justice of the peace in Gentry county, Missouri, where, upon a trial before a jury, the plaintiff got a verdict and judgment for $30, from which the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where, upon a trial before the court without a jury, the plaintiff again got a judgment and verdict for $15, from which the defendants, after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, bring the case here by appeal.
The complaint filed before the justice, on which this action was founded, is as follows: At the return day before the justice, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the cause for the reason that no bill of items had been filed as required by law, which motion was overruled by the justice. At the retrial of the cause in the circuit court, this motion was not again renewed or insisted on, but the parties went to trial on the merits before the court without a jury. During the trial no exceptions were taken to any of the rulings of the court, nor were any instructions or declarations of law asked or given on either side.
After the finding and judgment of the court for plaintiff, the defendants, in due time, filed their motion for a new trial, for the following reasons: 1st, The finding of the court sitting as a jury is contrary to the evidence. 2nd, The finding of the court sitting as a jury is against the weight of evidence. 3rd, That the property in controversy in this suit came to the possession of Emma Meyer, the wife of plaintiff, in August, 1874, while she was residing with her said husband in the state of Indiana, as appears by the uncontradicted evidence in the cause, and by the laws of the state of Indiana, the said property remained the separate property of his wife, Emma Meyer, during all the time she continued to reside in the state of Indiana. 4th, That the said Emma Meyer continued to reside with her said husband in the state of Indiana until the year 1876, when they removed with said property to the State of Missouri, where the provisions of the statute of Missouri, approved March 25th, 1875, amendatory of chapter 115, General Statutes, entitled “Of husband and wife, and the rights of married women,” immediately attached and became operative upon said property so as to continue the title thereto in the said Emma Meyer. 5th, The court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff for the value of any part of the property claimed by him on the trial of the cause, because there was no evidence showing that the said plaintiff had ever reduced said property to his possession in the manner required by law.
The defendants also, in due time, filed their motion in arrest of judgment for the reasons: 1st, The finding was against the evidence in the cause. 2nd, The finding was against the weight of evidence in the cause. These motions for a new trial and in arrest being both overruled by the court, the defendants then and there duly excepted.
It appears from the bill of exceptions that plaintiff, on the 2nd day of March, 1871, married the daughter of one of the defendants, and the sister of the other; that this marriage took place in the state of Indiana, where all the parties resided at the time; that shortly thereafter, in the spring of 1871, all the parties removed to the State of Missouri, and settled in Gentry county; that in the fall of 1871 the plaintiff and wife moved back to the state of Indiana, where the wife remained with her husband about one year, when she left him on account of alleged mistreatment, and returned to her father in Gentry county, Missouri, where she remained about eighteen months, when her husband came to Missouri and persuaded his wife to return with him to Indiana, which she did in the summer of 1874, where plaintiff and wife continued to reside until sometime in 1876, when they again removed to Missouri and settled in Gentry county. It also appears in August, 1874, when plaintiff and wife were about to return to Indiana the second time, that the mother of Mrs. Meyer, in Gentry county, Missouri, boxed up a feather bed, a blanket, two quilts with some minor articles of bed-clothes and some other articles, and shipped them to her daughter in Indiana as a present to her, where the articles arrived in due time. The trial of this cause in the circuit court of Gentry county took place in October, 1877, and the evidence showed that on the 12th day of June, 1877, the defendants, in company with Mrs. Meyer, the wife of plaintiff, and one George Coffee, went to the house of plaintiff while he was absent in the field, and upon their arrival at the house, which was closed and fastened, the said Coffee opened the house, and Mrs. Meyer entered and brought out a feather bed, a blanket, three quilts, two pillow-cases, sheets and some other articles, including clothing of wife and child, etc., and that Perry McCabe, one of the defendants, put them in the wagon while his father, the other defendant, stood at the fence beside the wagon. The goods thus taken were then carried to the house of the elder McCabe, where his daughter, the plaintiff's wife,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisdom v. Keithley
...be presumed that the common law prevails in that State. Phipps v. Markin, 220 S.W. 870; Boyer v. N. Drayage Co., 67 S.W. (2d) 770; Myer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236; Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447; McPike v. McPike, 111 Mo. 226. The record of a deed cannot be made constructive notice of the exist......
-
Burdict v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company
..."In the absence of any showing to the contrary it will be presumed that the common law prevails in a sister state." See, also, Meyer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236; Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S.W. Wooden v. Railroad, supra. Moreover, the question was not raised by answer, on the trial, nor b......
-
Wisdom v. Keithley
...be presumed that the common law prevails in that State. Phipps v. Markin, 220 S.W. 870; Boyer v. N. Drayage Co., 67 S.W.2d 770; Myer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236; Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447; McPike McPike, 111 Mo. 226. The record of a deed cannot be made constructive notice of the existence o......
-
Burdict v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.
...the absence of anything showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the common law prevails in a sister state.' See, also, Meyer v. McCabe, 73 Mo. 236; Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 82; Wooden v. Railroad Co., supra. Moreover, the question was not raised by answer, on the t......