Skinner v. Stouse

Decision Date30 June 1835
Citation4 Mo. 93
PartiesALFRED SKINNER v. JAMES STOUSE.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

ERROR TO ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT

MCGIRK, J.

Stouse brought an action of replevin against Skinner for a negro woman, the declaration is in the usual form. Skinner, the defendant in the Circuit Court, pleaded non cepit, property in himself, property in a stranger, to-wit: one Blood, and property in one Rosanna Berry, on all these pleas issues were taken to the country, a verdict and judgment were given for the plaintiff Stouse. On the trial the plaintiff read in evidence a bill of sale from Rosanna Berry to him for the slave in question, dated 6th August, 1829. The plaintiff also proved that the slave was delivered to him by Rosanna Berry at the time of the execution of the bill of sale. That he paid at the same time for the slave two hundred dollars which he borrowed, that the slave was in the possession of the defendant at the time of bringing the suit, that he claimed her as his property, that he obtained the slave from R. Berry. The defendant then proved that at the time of the execution of the bill of sale the plaintiff was the son-in-law of Rosanna Berry, and lived with her on a farm then occupied by her. That the slave sued for continued at the farm during all the time Berry and the plaintiff lived together on the farm, that about March or April, 1832, Stouse moved away from the farm leaving this slave with Mrs. Berry, taking with him considerable property, in whose possession the slave continued till the same was hired to Skinner, the defendant. It was proved that the reason of making the bill of sale by Berry to Stouse was, that Rosanna's property was about to be sold on execution, that Stouse borrowed the money to pay the debt and took this bill of sale and a transfer of other property, and among that property he took a transfer of Rosanna's right of dower to the farm on which they lived for the money advanced. The defendant proved that about three years before Stouse left the farm, Rosanna Berry expressed a desire that he should leave the farm, that Stouse said if she would let him remain there two years and have the use of the place, the services of her sons and force, he would at the expiration of the time give up the slave and all the writings and leave the place, which place and hands Stouse did enjoy for that time, and at the expiration of that time Stouse insisted on enjoying the same advantage one year more, which he did, and then left the same, but did not give up the bill of sale. The defendant derives his title from Rosanna Berry by a bill of sale subsequent to Stouse's bill of sale. The slave was afterwards hired to Skinner by Mrs. Berry who became indebted to Skinner, and to pay that debt sold the slave to him. It was proved that before Skinner bought, Stouse told him that he wished him to get the girl of Mrs. Berry, and that if he did he would make over to him all his title; that after Skinner became the purchaser Stouse said he was glad of it, and that he would pass his title to Skinner, that when Skinner applied to Stouse to pass his title Stouse refused unless Skinner would give him one hundred dollars to do so. Skinner said he would do so if Stouse would take goods, which he refused. It was also proved that the two witnesses who proved the matter relating to keeping the plantation the time Stouse had it, were unfriendly to Stouse. It was also proved that shortly after Mrs. Berry had sold to Skinner, and before she had gotten all the pay, she took the benefit of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Crismond v. Kendrick
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1930
    ...the Commerce Trust Company, were valid and subsisting liens against their interests in the land. Guffey v. O'Reiley, 88 Mo. 418; Skinner v. Stouse, 4 Mo. 93; Schneider v. Schneider, 284 Mo. John S. Crawford and Smith B. Atwood for respondents Horace Crismond and Ivy M. Spratt. (1) Sarah L. ......
  • Manning v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Mayo 1904
    ... ... This brings plaintiff clearly within the rule ... of estoppel. Alexander v. Railroad, 138 Mo. 464; ... Price v. Hallet, 138 Mo. 575; Skinner v ... Stouse, 4 Mo. 93; Austin v. Loring, 63 Mo. 19; ... Slagel v. Murdock, 65 Mo. 522; Stevenson v ... County, 65 Mo. 425; Longworth v ... ...
  • Crismond v. Kendrick
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1930
    ... ... and subsisting liens against their interests in the land ... Guffey v. O'Reiley, 88 Mo. 418; Skinner v ... Stouse, 4 Mo. 93; Schneider v. Schneider, 284 Mo. 314 ...           John ... S. Crawford and Smith B. Atwood for respondents ... ...
  • The Gregmoore Orchard Company v. Gilmour
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 6 Noviembre 1911
    ...any notice thereof, is estopped as against such purchaser from afterwards asserting his title. Guffey v. O'Reilly, 88 Mo. 418; Skinner v. Scouse, 4 Mo. 93; Reiss Hanchett, 141 Ill 419, 31 N.E. 165; McConnell v. People, 84 Ill. 583; Morford v. Bliss, 12 D. Mon. 255; Arnold v. Stevens, 17 S.W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT