Pope v. Salsman

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtDRYDEN
Citation35 Mo. 362
PartiesWILLIAM M. POPE, Defendant in Error, v. WILLIAM SALSMAN, Plaintiff in Error.
Decision Date31 January 1865

35 Mo. 362

WILLIAM M. POPE, Defendant in Error,
v.
WILLIAM SALSMAN, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1865.


[35 Mo. 363]

Error to Camden Circuit Court.

The amended petition was as follows: “The plaintiff in the above cause, by leave of the court first had and obtained, by way of amendment to his original petition, states, that heretofore, to wit: about the year 1854, being then the owner of the south-east quarter of the south-east quarter of section No. 26, in township No. 39, of range No. 15, and one Scott Strong being the owner of the north-east quarter of the south-east quarter of the above described section, township and range, they, the said Salsman and Strong, erected a mill and mill dam on the above described lands; the mill buildings being erected on the land of Salsman and the mill dam on both of the above described tracts, but mainly on the land of Strong. That it was the agreement of said Salsman and Strong that each should defray one-half of the necessary expense in the building of said mill and mill dam; and that when completed, they were to be joint owners and tenants in common of said mill. Plaintiff states that, in pursuance of said agreement, the parties thereto expended each a considerable sum of money in and about said work; but the precise sum this plaintiff cannot state. That afterwards, to wit, on or about the 1st day of May, 1856, plaintiff purchased of the said Scott Strong all his right, title and interest in said mill and mill dam; that Strong and wife have duly conveyed to plaintiff said north-east quarter of section 26, township 39, range 15, and that plaintiff is now the owner thereof. Plaintiff states that his purchase from Strong was made with the knowledge and assent of the defendant, and with the understanding between plaintiff and defendant that plaintiff would be accepted as a co-partner and admitted to the joint use and occupancy of said mill with the defendant. Plaintiff states that the amount expended by said Strong in and about the building of said mill and mill dam was about the sum of seven hundred dollars, but the precise amount plaintiff does not know, and therefore cannot state.

[35 Mo. 364]

Plaintiff further states, that, from and ever since his purchase as aforesaid from said Strong, the defendant has been in the use and occupancy of the mill to the entire exclusion of plaintiff, and refuses to allow plaintiff to participate in the use of said mill, or to have any share of the rents and profits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...is erroneous. Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; McHoney v. German Ins. Co, 44 Mo. App. 426; McCoy v. Yeager, 34 Mo. 134; Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo......
  • Jones v. Shaw
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1878
    ...relief, [67 Mo. 671]was alleged, and the defendant Shaw neither stated nor prayed an account of the partnership affairs. Pope v. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362. Besides, the answer of the defendants was a joint one, and the defendant Cranchler certainly had no interest in the copartnership of the plai......
  • Bank of Missouri v. Haden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1865
    ...Headlee as administrator aforesaid and the other defendants aforesaid.” It will be perceived that the petition states that Hendricks, [35 Mo. 362]Hancock and Gilmore made their negotiable promissory note to Hendricks, who endorsed and delivered it to Haden, who endorsed and delivered it to ......
3 cases
  • Kansas City v. Halvorson, No. 38611.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1943
    ...is erroneous. Mooney v. Kennett, 19 Mo. 551; McHoney v. German Ins. Co, 44 Mo. App. 426; McCoy v. Yeager, 34 Mo. 134; Pope v. Salesman, 35 Mo. 362; Meyers v. Field, 37 Mo. 434; Hoagland v. Ry., 39 Mo. 451; Peyton v. Rose, 41 Mo. 257; Flinton v. Palmer, 177 S.W. 777; Flowers v. Smith, 214 Mo......
  • Jones v. Shaw
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1878
    ...relief, [67 Mo. 671]was alleged, and the defendant Shaw neither stated nor prayed an account of the partnership affairs. Pope v. Salsman, 35 Mo. 362. Besides, the answer of the defendants was a joint one, and the defendant Cranchler certainly had no interest in the copartnership of the plai......
  • Bank of Missouri v. Haden
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • January 31, 1865
    ...Headlee as administrator aforesaid and the other defendants aforesaid.” It will be perceived that the petition states that Hendricks, [35 Mo. 362]Hancock and Gilmore made their negotiable promissory note to Hendricks, who endorsed and delivered it to Haden, who endorsed and delivered it to ......

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