Section 204
- Citation
- Section 204
- Parent Document
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1954-07-17
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5195275/duvall-v-stokes/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (26)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Duvall v. Stokes, 270 S.W.2d 419 (1954)
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
- Section 204
Full Text
875 charsThere is no suggestion that the certificate was ever “changed by the Housing Expediter or * * * otherwise suspended,” or that plaintiffs endeavored to pursue any administrative remedy for the purpose of attacking the validity of the certificate or questioning defendant’s good faith in obtaining it. The certificate is not subject to collateral attack in this action [Sviadas v. Seelig, 239 Mo.App. 1121, 202 S.W.2d 543, 546-547(1-3)]; and in developing their submitted theory of alleged unlawful eviction under the Act, plaintiffs had no right to inquire into the question of whether defendant had acted fraudulently or in bad faith in procuring, issuance of the certificate [Horton v. Cantrell, 238 Mo.App. 681, 187 S.W.2d 860(2); F. A. *425Sander Real Estate & Inv. Co. v. Becker, Mo.App., 202 S.W.2d 549, 552(5)].2 In short, we cannot “go behind” the certificate, itself.