Bent v. Peters
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Parties | SILAS BENT, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOSEPH PETERS, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court.
Hitchcock, Lubke & Player, were of counsel for Plaintiff in Error in the Supreme Court.
S. N. Holliday, for Defendant in Error.
This was a bill in equity for the purpose of having title to a certain lot vested in the plaintiff. The bill states that in September, 1865, Erastus Wells sold to one Prottsman the lot in controversy, with others, and gave him a title bond to make a deed therefor on payment of the purchase money that in April, 1866, defendants with full knowledge of the sale and bond, fraudulently took and received of Wells a deed for the lot, for the purpose of defrauding Prottsman, or by collusion with Prottsman to enable him to cheat and defraud his creditors, he being largely indebted; that the deed was taken by the defendants for the one or the other, plaintiff not knowing which; that the deed was executed to ficitious persons for a fictitious corporation; that in June, 1869, Prottsman, who was notoriously insolvent and known so to be by the defendants, executed to them his voluntary deed for the premises; that afterwards, in 1869, plaintiff recovered a judgment against Prottsman, in the Green County Circuit Court, upon which execution was issued, and that in 1870 he caused the said real estate to be sold and became the purchaser thereof, and received a sheriff's deed for the same. The prayer was that the defendants be divested of the title and that the same be vested in the plaintiff.
The answer was a denial of all the allegations in the bill, and set up as a defense that on the 10th day of April, 1860, they purchased, of Prottsman and Wells, the lot in controversy; that the title was at the time in Wells, who had given a bond for a deed to Prottsman; that defendants purchased from agents who represented Prottsman and Wells, and Wells made a deed to defendants, with the knowledge and consent of Prottsman, as by the bond he was bound to do; that the defendants bought the land in good faith, and paid the entire purchase money to Wells and received a warranty deed from him, and that the names of two of the defendants were spelled erroneously, and both of those errors were corrected in the subsequent deed of Prottsman, and that his deed was obtained for that purpose simply; that plaintiff was informed at the time of his purchase that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Matthews v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co.
-
Landrum v. Union Bank of Missouri
...cannot now redeem when the land has increased greatly in value by building and time, unless he shows substantial equity. (Bent vs. Peters, 59 Mo. 479.) IV. The mere fact, all else being right, a full consideration being paid, that the trustee delegated his power to one who the proof shows a......