Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Mo. 280

McCutcheon v. Sigerson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1863

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1863-10-15

Louis Court of Common Pleas. Defendants in error pleaded the following plea in bar of writ: The defendants come and say, in bar and preclusion of the said writ of error, that the said plaintiffs in error the same ought not to have and maintain, because they say that after the rendition of the judgment in this cause by the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, and before the impetration of the said writ of error, to-wit, on the 5th day of April, 1858, the said defendants in error…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1901

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dryden, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2In this case the defendants in error have pleaded a plea in this court, whereby they in substance aver, that since the recovery of the judgment in which it is alleged the error exists, the plaintiff in error by his certain deed released the said errors to which the plaintiff has replied, and the defendants have demurred to the replication. The question for our consideration is the sufficiency of the replication. The replication attempts to explain the scope and meaning of the deed, and to show that its provisions did not embrace the matter in controversy; but it does not affect to deny that the deed is the act and deed of the plaintiff, nor does it confess and avoid the ground of defence set up in the plea. The demurrer must therefore be sustained and the judgment affirmed ;

the other judges concurring.
/34/mo/280 · .json · Public domain