Whittelsey v. Dorsett
| Decision Date | 31 March 1856 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | WHITTELSEY, Appellant, v. DORSETT & OTHERS, Respondents. |
1. Jones v. Brinker, (20 Mo. 87,) and The State, to use of Tourville, v. Roland, ante, (p. 95,) affirmed.
C. C. Whittelsey, for appellant.
Gantt, for respondents.
This case comes fully within the principles laid down by the court in the case of Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo. 87, and of the case of State, to use of Tourville, v. Roland et al., decided at the present term.
The judgment must be affirmed; the other judges concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
8 cases
-
Ackermann v. Haumueller
... ... (2) The final settlement can be ... impeached only for fraud. Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo ... 87; Tourville v. Roland, 23 Mo. 95; Whittelsey ... v. Dorsett, 23 Mo. 236; Nelson v. Barnett, 123 ... Mo. 564; Smiley v. Smiley, 80 Mo. 44; Heitkamp ... v. Biedenstein, 3 Mo.App. 450 ... ...
-
Lenox v. Harrison
...has the force and effect of, and is a judgment of the probate court. Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo. 87; State v. Rowland, 23 Mo. 95; Whittlesey v. Dorsett, 23 Mo. 236; Mitchell v. Williams, 27 Mo. 399; Picot v. Biddle, 35 Mo. 41; Lewis v. Williams, 54 Mo. 200; Sheetz v. Kestly, 62 Mo. 417. And su......
- Kansas City Loan Guarantee Co. v. Kansas City
-
Miller v. Major
...upon proof that the same was falsely and fraudulently obtained. Jones v. Brinker, 20 Mo. 87; The State v. Roland, 23 Mo. 95; Whittlesey v. Dorsett, 23 Mo. 236; Mitchell v. Williams, 27 Mo. 399; Picot v. Bates, 47 Mo. 390; Sullivan County v. Burgess, 37 Mo. 300; Lewis v. Williams, 54 Mo. 200......
Request a trial to view additional results