Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

25 Mo. 349

Stephens v. Hume

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided July 15, 1857

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1857-07-15

Reuben Hume died December 1st, 1851, seized of certain tracts of land. He left him, surviving, his widow, Elizabeth Hume, and children, of whom Nancy J. Stephens, the wife oí plaintiff, was one, and grand-children. An undivided interest in said tracts of one-seventh vested in said Nancy, the wife of plaintiff. At the death of said Reuben Hume, issue of the marriage of the said Nancy and plaintiff was living. The wife of plaintiff died before the institution of this suit.

Relies on Reaume v. Chambers · Gudgell v. Mead

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1857-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1909

7 state decisions

20185718601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scott, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This writ of error was prematurely sued out, as there was no final judgment in the cause. This was a proceeding in partition, and in such there are two judgments — the one interlocutory, and the other final. The first is quod partitio fiet inter partes de tenementis, upon which a writ or commission goes, commanding that partition be made; and upon the return of this writ or commission executed, if the proceedings are approved by the court, the second judgment is given quod partitio firma et stabilis in perpetuum teneatur. This is the principal judgment, and before it is given no writ of error does lie. (Gudgell & Austin v. Mead and others, 8 Mo. 55.) This writ must then be dismissed.

¶3In the case of Reaume v. Chambers, 22 Mo. 54, it was held that the actual seizin of the wife was not necessary to entitle the husband to curtesy. (1 Hill, on Real Prop. 76, 77.) The permission given by the statute to the wife to remain in possession of her deceased husband’s mansion house, *351and tbe messuages or plantation thereto belonging, does not affect the right to curtesy. Such possession is not adverse to the heirs of the husband. Writ dismissed;

Judge Ryland concurring; Judge Leonard absent.
/25/mo/349 · .json · Public domain