Case Name: 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
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1902-12-24
Citations: 171 Mo. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: 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.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 171
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.