Fisher Brothers Company v. Gipson, No. 6459.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Blair |
| Citation | 176 S.W.2d 874 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 6459. |
| Parties | FISHER BROTHERS COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. Bert GIPSON, Appellant. |
v.
Bert GIPSON, Appellant.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; James V. Billings, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
R. F. Baynes, of New Madrid, and C. A. Powell, of Dexter, for appellant.
Bailey & Bailey, of Sikeston, and R. Kip Briney, of Bloomfield, for respondent.
BLAIR, Presiding Judge.
This is an action for unlawful detainer, filed by Fisher Brothers Company, a corporation, plaintiff (respondent here), against Bert Gipson, defendant (appellant here), before Pres Hearn, a justice of the peace in Castor Township, in Stoddard
County, on January 18, 1943, for possession of the following real estate, towit: "All that part of Sections 9, 16, 20, and 21, in Township 24 north, Range 12 east, and all that part of of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, and 23 in Township 24 north, Range 11 east, which was rented and occupied by defendant during the year 1942."
The jury, in the Circuit Court, upon appeal thereto by plaintiff, found plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the lands described, and fixed plaintiff's damages for withholding such possession at the sum of $1,666 2/3 per month, or $20,000 per year, beginning February 15, 1943.
From such judgment and without giving an appeal bond for more than the costs, defendant has appealed.
All of the issues in this case were settled by this court in case No. 6458, Fisher v. Lape, 176 S.W.2d 871, not yet published [in State Report], in which the writer has fully concurred. It is therefore unnecessary to go over the same ground again.
For the reasons given in Leo A. Fisher v. Fritz Lape, No. 6458, above referred to, the judgment in this case must be and is affirmed.
SMITH and FULBRIGHT, JJ., concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gipson v. Fisher Bros. Co., No. 6661.
...alfalfa growing on said land and that because of an adverse decision of this court in that case (Fisher Brothers Co. v. Gipson, Mo.App., 176 S.W.2d 874) the defendant's rights were adjudicated and pleads res adjudicate. Defendant further alleges that plaintiff received certain payments from......
-
Gipson v. Fisher Bros. Co., No. 6661.
...alfalfa growing on said land and that because of an adverse decision of this court in that case (Fisher Brothers Co. v. Gipson, Mo.App., 176 S.W.2d 874) the defendant's rights were adjudicated and pleads res adjudicate. Defendant further alleges that plaintiff received certain payments from......