Case ID: mo-app_17/html/0499-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Philips, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Mo. Pacific Railway Co., Respondent, v. Filer Sackett, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. J. P. Edwards, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. A.L. McBride & Co, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. J. H. Frizzell, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. F. B. Fay, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. J. A. Devinney, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. Robinson & Son, Appellants. Same, Respondent, v. D. B. Smith, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. O. F. Renist, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. Miers & Beaty, Appellants. Same, Respondant, v. Jas. H. Hitshew, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. J. A. Lefker, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. T. C. Boulware, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. Charles Desney, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. Allen Day, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. F. M. Wyatt, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. I. N. Davidson, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. W. E. Walton, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. Fred. Evans, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. W. W. Eldridge, Appellant. Same, Respondent. v. Shaw & Hannah, Appellants. Same, Respondent, v. David McGangley, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. A. Henry, Appellant. Same, Respondent, v. R. Wells & Co., Appellants. Same, Respondent, v. L. M. Wright, Appellant. Same, Respondent, T. W. Childs, Appellant, Same, Respondent, v. Chas. Endres, Appellant.
    May 4, 1885,
    Affirmed on. the authority of same plaintiff v. R. A. & J. Atlcison.
    
    Appeal from Cass Circuit Court, Hon. Noah M. G-ivan, Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    A. Henry, T. J. Hallow ay, P. C. Fulkerson, E. J. Smith, and W. P. Johnson, for the appellant.
    Same brief as in the case of some plaintiff v. R. A. & J. Atlcison, just decided, page 484.
    Railey & Barnes, for respondent.
    Same brief as in the case of same plaintiff v. R.A.& J. Atlcison, just decided, page.-.
   Opinion by

Philips, P. J.

The foregoing cases present the same questions of fact and law as the case of the same plaintiff v. R. A. & J. Atkison just decided by this court. And for the reasons therein given, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.