Case ID: mo_171/html/0142-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      MARSHALL, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. UPSHAW; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. MEYER; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. HAASE et al.; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. CARONDELET FOUNDRY COMPANY; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. FOSTER; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. FRUEND et al.; PENISTON et al., Appellants, v. HILDEBRAND.
    Division One,
    December 24, 1902.
    Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — How. H. D: Wood, Judge.
    Affirmed.
   MARSHALL, J.

These cases are similar to the case of Peniston et al. v. Schlude, p. 132, this volume, except that different parcels of land are involved and the defendants are different.

The decision in the Schlude case is equally applicable to these cases, and for the reasons- given in that case the judgments of the circuit court in these cases are affirmed.

All concur.