Cook v. Cooksey, No. 20007.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtNipper
Citation300 S.W. 1034
Docket NumberNo. 20007.
Decision Date10 January 1928
PartiesCOOK v. COOKSEY et al.
300 S.W. 1034
COOK
v.
COOKSEY et al.
No. 20007.
St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.
January 10, 1928.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Francois County; Peter H. Huck, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Peter Cook against Samuel Cooksey and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Jerry B. Burks, of Farmington, for appellants.

B. H. Marbury, of Farmington, and T. H. Jackson, of Desloge, for respondent.

NIPPER, J.


This is an action by plaintiff to recover one-half of the value of a division fence. Plaintiff and defendants were adjoining landowners. The action originated in a justice court, and was tried in the circuit court upon an amended petition. The petition alleged that plaintiff was the owner of a certain fence made of posts and wire, four and one-half feet high, situated on the line running east and west between the lands of plaintiff and defendants, the defendants holding the estate by the entirety; that the fence runs along the division line running

east and west between said lands; that said fence is 17 and 80/100 chains long, and is of a total value of $65.69. The plaintiff further alleged that requests for reviewers of said fence were filed before a certain justice of the peace in St. Francois county, and that thereafter there was an order made appointing three disinterested landholders of the township, who qualified, to view the premises and make the proper report; that one-half of the value of said fence was $32.84. Plaintiff asked judgment for this amount. The answer was a general denial.

There was no attack of any kind made upon the petition in the court below. Upon a trial before the court and a jury, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff, in the sum of $32.84. From this judgment defendants appeal.

The defendants purchased this land, consisting of about 39 acres, from one Aubuchon, after the fence was built. The original fence was a rail fence, but a short time prior to the purchase of the land by defendants plaintiff built a wire fence. It appears that, after plaintiff built the fence, the party who sold the adjoining land to defendants asked permission to connect with plaintiff's fence. It appears that the posts were 8 or 9 feet apart; the woven wire was 39 inches high; and some 8 or 9 inches above this wire was placed a barbed wire. There is some evidence that the fence was more than 5 feet high. The wire was some 2 or 3 inches above the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Connole v. E. St. L. & Sub. Ry. Co., No. 33538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 11, 1937
    ...in others. Murphy v. Loeffler, 39 S.W. (2d) 550; Leach v. Ry. Co., 118 S.W. 510; Jerkowitz v. Kansas City, 77 S.W. 1088; Cook v. Cooksey, 300 S.W. 1034. (c) Evidence to support an instruction may be drawn from the testimony of several witnesses. Root v. Railroad Co., 141 S.W. 610. (d) The f......
  • Schelp v. Nicholls, No. 19893.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...stated. The defendant asks for a reversal of this judgment here on the facts as shown by the evidence. As was said in this case on the 300 S.W. 1034 former appeal, the rule of law, according to the weight of authority, is to the effect that the pledgee of a note, secured by a mortgage, as c......
2 cases
  • Connole v. E. St. L. & Sub. Ry. Co., No. 33538.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 11, 1937
    ...in others. Murphy v. Loeffler, 39 S.W. (2d) 550; Leach v. Ry. Co., 118 S.W. 510; Jerkowitz v. Kansas City, 77 S.W. 1088; Cook v. Cooksey, 300 S.W. 1034. (c) Evidence to support an instruction may be drawn from the testimony of several witnesses. Root v. Railroad Co., 141 S.W. 610. (d) The f......
  • Schelp v. Nicholls, No. 19893.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 10, 1928
    ...stated. The defendant asks for a reversal of this judgment here on the facts as shown by the evidence. As was said in this case on the 300 S.W. 1034 former appeal, the rule of law, according to the weight of authority, is to the effect that the pledgee of a note, secured by a mortgage, as c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT