Murphy v. Murphy
Decision Date | 31 May 1827 |
Citation | 1 Mo. 741 |
Parties | MURPHY v. MURPHY AND OTHERS. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
M'GIRK, C. J.
The case appears to be, that in 1822, David Murphy and Jesse Evans, petitioned the Circuit Court for a partition of certain land, the former property o Sarah Murphy. The court made an order to that effect, and appointed commissioners, who made their report, assigning to each claimant his lot of land. The court accepted this report, but amended it, by assigning some of the lots to different persons than those pointed out by the commissioners; and also, the court cast lots, between some of the claimants, to determine which lots they should have. This course we conceive to be illegal. When the commissioners had laid out the lots, according to quantity and value, they might have taken any such mode as this, to determine which lot should belong to each, if it became necessary for them to do so; but the court cannot do this, for the simple reason, that it is not their business to make the partition, which they have, to a considerable degree, done in this case. If the court found the partition was unequal, unlawful, or contrary to their order, they should have sent it back to the commissioners, with such instructions as might meet the justice of the case.(a) The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed with costs, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Field v. Leiter
... ... (15 Ency. Pl. & Pr., p ... 818; Freeman on Co-ten. and Par. (2d Ed.), 526; Lucas v ... Petres, 45 Ind. 313-318; Murphy v. Murphy, 1 ... Mo. 741; George v. Murphy, 1 Mo. 777.) It is not ... necessary, nor is there any reason therefor, to state in the ... report ... ...
-
Anderson v. Ragan
...of "fact" is reviewable in the appellate court. Hardware Co. v. Wolters, 91 Mo. 484; State ex rel. v. Hurlstone, 92 Mo. 332; Murphy v. Murphy, 1 Mo. 741; Bender Markle, 37 Mo.App. 242. (3) And the appellate court, in such cases, will weigh the evidence to see that substantial justice is don......
-
Lenox v. Livingston
...10 Ga. 328; McCormick v. Taylor, 5 Ind. 436; Stiner v. Cawthorn, 4 Dev. & Bat., N. C., 500; Eagles v. Eagles, 2 Hayw. 181; Murphy v. Murphy, 1 Mo. 741; Spitts v. Wells, 18 Mo. 468; Wainwright v. Rowland, 25 Mo. 53; Papin v. Blumenthal, 41 Mo. 440.) Bland & Bland, and Ewing & Smith, for defe......
- Risher v. Thomas