TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Madkins v. Trice

Madkins v. Trice, in Error

Madkins v. Trice, 65 Mo. 656 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1877
Judges
Except, Henry, Hough
Citations
65 Mo. 656
Cited by 9
Headnotes
Replevin in Justice’s Court: defective statement: power of circuit court to permit amendment. In an action brought in a justice’s court under the statute concerning tli? claim and delivery of personal property (Wag. Stat. 817), an affidavit to plaintiff’s statement which omits to say that the property claimed has not been seized under any process, execution or attachment against the property of plaintiff, is defective; and the circuit court, on appeal, has no power to permit it to be amended.
Summary
Error to Macon Circuit Court.—Hon. John ~W. Henry, Judge.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hough

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hough, J.

This was an action under the statute in relation to the claim and delivery of personal property, instituted before a justice of the peace. The affidavit of plaintiff omitted to state that the property claimed “had not been seized under any process, execution, or attachment against the property of the plaintiff'.” On appeal to the circuit court, the affidavit was amended and the omission supplied. Since the trial of this cause by the circuit court, it has been expressly decided by this court in the case of Gist v. Boring, 60 Mo. 487 , that such an amendment cannot be made after appeal to the circuit court. The judgment, which was' for the plaintiff must therefore be reversed, and the suit be dismissed.

All concur except Judge Henry, not sitting.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →
1886–1887: 21888–1889: 11890–1891: 21892–1893: 11908–1909: 11910–1911: 218862026peak 1886 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dowdy v. Wamble19 S.W. 489 (Mo. 1892)
  2. Union Brewing Co. v. Ehlhardt120 S.W. 1193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Crum v. Elliston33 Mo. App. 591 (1889)
  4. Corrigan v. Morris43 Mo. App. 456 (1891)
  5. Dollman v. Munson90 Mo. 85 (1886)
  6. Short v. Morrison130 S.W. 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)

Most recent

  1. Gibson v. Ball141 S.W. 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)
  2. Short v. Morrison130 S.W. 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910)
  3. Union Brewing Co. v. Ehlhardt120 S.W. 1193 (Mo. Ct. App. 1909)
  4. Dowdy v. Wamble19 S.W. 489 (Mo. 1892)
  5. Corrigan v. Morris43 Mo. App. 456 (1891)
  6. Dowdy v. Womble41 Mo. App. 573 (1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gist v. Loring, 60 Mo. 487 (1875) 18

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list