Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 Mo. 39

Grayson v. Weddle

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1883-10-15

<p>1. Administrator’s Sale: error in deed : equity fob title. Where a purchaser of land at administrator’s sale pays the purchase money, and the same is applied in discharge of the debts of the decedent, but the land is not correctly described in the administrator’s deed, an assignee of the purchaser will he entitled to a decree in equity correcting the error and divesting the legal title to the land out of the heirs of the decedent and vesting it in him.</p> <p>2. Jury Trial. Where an answer in ejectment combined a legal with an equitable defense, Held, that it was error to refuse a jury trial upon the issues at law. But where the parties after such refusal submitted the case for trial to a counselor of the court, stipulating that his finding should be entered as the finding of the court; Held,, that this waived the right to have a jury.</p> <p>3. Justices of the Peace. A justice of the peace has no authority to do an official act beyond the limits of his own county. An application for a change of venue sworn to before a justice outside of his county is, therefore, not verified by affidavit.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1923

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1883-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1On Motion for Rehearing.

Henry, J.

¶2The judgment heretofore rendered in this cause, to-wit, on December 3rd, 1883, at the present term of this court, by which the judgment of the circuit court was reversed and the cause remanded, is hereby set aside and a judgment of affirmance will be rendered and is hereby ordered. The sole ground upon which the reversal was based was that the court erred in refusing plaintiffs’ request that a jury should be called to try the issues of fact. No abstract of the record was filed by defendants’ counsel, and from that filed by plaintiffs in error the following order was omitted, although contained in the transcript, at page 31: “ Now at this day come the parties hereto by their respective attorneys,» and by agreement of said parties in open court, it is ordered that this cause be submitted to the lion. Wm. Henry for trial, his finding herein to be made the finding of the court, subject to all exceptions to the same extent as if tried by the judge of this court.” The cause was tried by ¥m. Henry, and we would not have reversed the judgment had we known of the existence of that order, and we would have discovered it, but for our confidence that no member of the bar of this court would omit from his abstract so important a part of the record and then insist upon a point which he must have known that such omitted part would have fully answered.

All the judges concur, except Norton, J., absent.
/80/mo/39 · .json · Public domain