TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Koehler v. Peake

AUGUST W. KOEHLER v. JAMES PEAKE

Koehler v. Peake, 157 S.W. 636 (Mo. 1913)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 31, 1913
Judges
Lamm
Citations
157 S.W. 636251 Mo. 11913 Mo. LEXIS 188
Disposition
Dismissed (by stipulation).
Headnotes
APPEAL: Dismissal Upon Stipulation: Without Revivor. Under Sec. 2075, R. S. 1909, a revivor, where one of the appealing plaintiffs has died, is not necessary in order that the appeal- may be dismissed in accordance with a stipulation entered into by the sole surviving plaintiff and respondent.
Summary
Appeal from Carter Circuit Court. — Mon. W. N. Evans, 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 — Lamm

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

LAMM, J.

*2

Dismissal of^ stipulation: Revivor.

*1 Suit to quiet title to land in Shannon county. Defendants Peate, Cox and Woodside *2 were decreed to have none, and abide the decree. Plaintiffs were also decreed to have none and title was decreed in defendant Missouri Mining and Lumber Company. Plaintiffs appeal.

At a certain time, the cause was regularly reached on the docket and submitted here .on briefs. While thus under submission and assigned for an opinion, a stipulation was filed showing that 'plaintiff, Julia Worth Wengler, was the sole surviving appellant and that the cause was to be dismissed at the costs of said Missouri Mining and Lumber Company in the Supreme Court, no action to be taken as to costs nisi — - they having been settled.

Under section 2075, Revised Statutes 1909, and cases interpreting it, it would seem that a revivor was not necessary to permit the stipulated disposition of the cause.

The case is one, then, to which the saying applies: A short horse, soon curried.

Therefore, by virtue of the stipulation, the cause should be dismissed at the costs of respondent, said company, in this court. It is so ordered.

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1920: 11924: 21952: 119202026peak 1924 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lake Superior Loader Co. v. Huttig Lead & Zinc Co.264 S.W. 396 (Mo. 1924)
  2. Mead v. Jasper County266 S.W. 467 (Mo. 1924)
  3. Morrison v. Phelps Stone Co.219 S.W. 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 1920)
  4. State ex rel. Consolidated District C-4 v. Holmes245 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. 1952)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Consolidated District C-4 v. Holmes245 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. 1952)
  2. Mead v. Jasper County266 S.W. 467 (Mo. 1924)
  3. Lake Superior Loader Co. v. Huttig Lead & Zinc Co.264 S.W. 396 (Mo. 1924)
  4. Morrison v. Phelps Stone Co.219 S.W. 393 (Mo. Ct. App. 1920)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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