Cassity v. Pound
Decision Date | 12 March 1902 |
Citation | 67 S.W. 283,167 Mo. 605 |
Parties | CASSITY v. POUND. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; Jno. P. Butler, Judge.
Proceedings for the admeasurement of dower and to set aside a homestead by Armstrong Cassity, as executor of the estate of Presley Pound, deceased, against Mary M. Pound. From a decree in favor of the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding by the executor of Presley Pound, under section 4546, Rev. St. 1889, to have the homestead set apart to the defendant, and also to have the dower of the defendant in the lands of the deceased admeasured and set apart to her. The defendant renounced the provisions of the will in her favor, and elected to take homestead and dower. In her answer she alleged that the homestead was untenantable, and that she had abandoned her rights to it as a homestead (there were no minor children), and she further asked to have the value of her dower interest computed and paid to her in cash, instead of assigning her dower in kind; but the trial court, on motion of the plaintiff, struck out those parts of her answer, and tried the case upon the theory that she was entitled to homestead and dower both. In his reply the plaintiff aver red that since the institution of this suit the defendant had sold and conveyed all her right, title, and interest to John M. Pound and James S. Pound, and that she no longer had any interest in the subject-matter. The court entered judgment that the defendant was entitled to homestead and dower, and appointed commissioners to set apart the same to her. The commissioners reported that they found that the estate consisted of certain real estate, and then added:
— Of which we admeasured and set apart the dower interest of Mary M. Pound, widow of Presley Pound, deceased, the following described real...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sutton v. Anderson
...the conditions imposed by it. 29 Cyc. 1522; Appeal & Error, 3 C.J. secs. 536, 537, 542, 546, 552; Scott v. Ferguson, 235 Mo. 584; Cassity v. Pound, 167 Mo. 605; King v. Campbell, 107 Mo. App. 496; Gilstrap v. Feltz, 50 Mo. 428. (3) The court did not err in overruling plaintiff's motion to s......
-
Sutton v. Anderson
... ... 29 Cyc. 1522; ... Appeal & Error, 3 C. J. secs. 536, 537, 542, 546, 552; ... Scott v. Ferguson, 235 Mo. 584; Cassity v ... Pound, 167 Mo. 605; King v. Campbell, 107 ... Mo.App. 496; Gilstrap v. Feltz, 50 Mo. 428. (3) The ... court did not err in overruling ... ...
-
Michigan Fire Ins. Co. v. Magee, Etc.
...100 S.W. 1090; Coleman v. Coleman, 122 Mo. App. 715, 718, 99 S.W. 459; Secs. 306, 318, 328, 608, 614, R.S. Mo., 1939; Cassidy v. Pound, 167 Mo. 605, 610, 67 S.W. 283; Secs. 3522 to 3524, R.S. Mo., 1939; Chambers v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 175 So. 95, 96-7. (4) The court also er......
-
Michigan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Magee
...100 S.W. 1090; Coleman v. Coleman, 122 Mo.App. 715, 718, 99 S.W. 459; Secs. 306, 318, 328, 608, 614, R. S. Mo., 1939; Cassidy v. Pound, 167 Mo. 605, 610, 67 S.W. 283; Secs. 3522 to 3524, R. S. Mo., 1939; Chambers v. British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 175 So. 95, 96-7. (4) The court also erred i......