Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

730 chars

It may be remarked, however, that Col. Broadhead’s recollection of the details of the • transaction aré not distinct, and he admits his inability to explain some of the undoubted facts of *583the case so as to make them harmonize with certain of his impressions. He thinks, for instance, that Judge Krum was not with him and Grumley, in his (Broadhead’s) office, when the papers were examined and executed, but he admits that $6,500 of Webb’s money was there, and he is not able to explain .its presence in his and Grumley’s control, with no one there to represent the owner. Assume Judge Krum’s presence — and he swears positively that he was there — and the transaction is relieved of its obscurity. Krum must have been present.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text