Williams v. Edwards
Decision Date | 19 March 1888 |
Citation | 94 Mo. 447,7 S.W. 429 |
Parties | WILLIAMS v. EDWARDS. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Macon county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.
This is an action of ejectment brought by John F. Williams, superintendent of the insurance department of Missouri, against Charles S. Edwards. Defendant obtained judgment, and plaintiff appeals.
W. S. Relfe and John T. Jones, for appellant. Eli J. Newton and Dysart & Mitchell, for respondent.
Ejectment for land in Macon county. Answer of defendant, a general denial, and to the effect that the note secured by the deed of trust given by him, and under which the land was sold, had been satisfied prior to the sale; and there was a prayer asking that the deed of trust be declared satisfied; the deed of the trustee made by virtue thereof to the St. Louis Life Insurance Company, and the deed to the Life Association of America, be set aside, etc.; and for other and further relief. Reply puts in issue the allegations of the answer as to payment, etc. The cause came on for hearing, and And there were admissions made by the parties litigant that showed the paper title to the premises was in the plaintiff. On his part, the defendant, in his testimony, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...to mean the person who negotiated the contract rather than the person in whose name and interest it was made;" and Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447, 7 S. W. 429, as expressly holding that both parties to the action being alive, one of them will not be competent to testify if the agent who ne......
-
Wagner v. Binder
...not. The doctrine of this case was substantially reaffirmed in the case of Leeper v. McGuire, 57 Mo. 360. The subsequent case of Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447 , only decided that, where a contract is made by a corporation and its contracting agent dies, this renders the other contracting ......
-
Freeman v. Berberich
...`other party' and stand in the place of the corporation with respect to the cause of action in issue and on trial. [See Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447, 7 S.W. 429.] In this view, it seems that Teague, defendant's watchman, should be regarded as the `other party' to the cause of action here......
-
J.E. Blank, Inc., v. Lennox Land Co.
...House v. Rood, 132 Mo. 256, 33 S.W. 816; In re Farmers & Merchants Bank of Lynn-Leismeyer v. Moberly, 119 S.W. (2d) 1012; Williams v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447, 7 S.W. 429; Lead & Zinc Co. v. Lead Co., 251 Mo. 721, 158 S.W. 369; Norvell v. Cooper, 155 Mo. App. 445, 134 S.W. 1095; People's Bank of......