The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1895-01-17
COURT OF APPEALS.

! We notice from the proceedings
OF Kansas City Court of Appeals TIE
following cases appealed from Bates
county we've passed upon to wit: S.
F. Taylor W School District No. 8,
Twp 3S. range 32, appellant; revers.
ed aud remanded
d. c. Miz-, respondent, VS. Bates
County National Bank, defendant,
"."'a Coot~', ct al, luterpleaders,
| tppei!art reversed and lemanded
with directions. L. S. Paddock,
r--pon iett, ~ the Missouri Pacific
R,IiMas Co, appellant; reversed aud
remauded
james T. Merchant, respondent,
vs. 5. H Boutwell,, ct al, appellants;
reversed and remanded.
K. l. Barton, ct al, apellents
against I X. Martin, ct al, respond
euts; reversed and remanded.
City of Rockville, respondent, VS.
J. I. Merchant, appellant. affirmed.
Tho case of Mize against the
Bates county National Bank grew
out of the fact that during his life
tune Col M. W. Mize purchased
some stock in this bank and directed
that it be issued to him as trustee
for his daughters and youngest son,
which was done He kept the Ger.
tifcates of stock in his possession
until he died, when ID. c. Mize, as
administrator sued the bank for the
dividends on this stock, claiming
that the stock was the property of
his father end that he was entitled
to it as administrator; the bank
claiming that it was the property of
the children. who were made parties
on the application of the bank. The
judgment of the court of appeals, it
seems. sustains the position of the
bank in this matter. D. G. Mize was
represented by Francisco Bros, the
bank by Thomas J. Smith, and the
other children of Col. Mlze by Boyd
& Murrell of Marshall.
Tue suit of Paddock VS. the Rail-
road wes over the loss of some hogs
shipped by Mr.. Paddock, alleged to
have been lost on account of the
failure of the railroad to have a win
dow in the car that would enable the
shipper to get into the car while en-
route. The case is sent back for
trial again. Mr. Paddock was repre-
sented by Graves & Clark, and the
railroad, of course, by Mr.. Railey.
The suit of Merchant VS. Boutwell,
was for false imprisonment and was
brought against the mayor, marshal
and aldermen of Rockville. In the
circuit court the plaintiff recovered
Judgment for $4,000 which is re-
versed by the court of appeals.
Graves & Clark represent Mr.. Mer
chant and Francisco Brothers, and
Boxley aud Horn the other side.
Connected with is the case of the
city Of Rockville against J. T. Mer-
chant, which was prosecution
| for violation of the ordinances Of
the city in failing to procure butch.
er's license, Mr. Merceant being con
victed by the mavor which seems to
have been reversed and remanded by
the court of appeals. The same at
torneys were in this as the Boutwell,
case.
The case of Bartin against Martin,
ct al. originated in 1889 over an at
tachment suit brought by Gregory
Grocer Co. against T. K. Martin,
then doing business at Worland
The real parties to this contest Were
, Barton Brothers on one side and
Gregory Grocer Co, on the other.
The Judgment of the circuit court
was in favor of the Gregory Groce,
Co. and this judgment is affirmed
, by the court of Appeals.
Barton Brothers were represented
by Il. 7. Railey, Judge Givan anc
Karnes. Holmes Il krauthoff of Kan
, sas CRY. The Gregory Grocer Co.
by Thos. j. Smith. Nr. Smith mad,
long, hard fight for his clients ant
is we'll pleased over the final result