Bunse v. Agee
| Decision Date | 31 January 1871 |
| Parties | JOHN BUNSE, Defendant in Error, v. SAMUEL D. AGEE AND JAMES SMITH, Plaintiffs in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to First District Court.
A. J. Seay, with Lay & Belch, for plaintiffs in error.
Ewing & Smith, for defendant in error.
Defendant Agee conveyed to defendant Smith the north half of the northwest quarter of section 3 of a certain township, describing each forty acres separately, and Smith conveyed the same to the plaintiff. Agee owned no part of the northwest quarter of the section, but did own the northeast quarter, and put Smith in possession of part of said northeast quarter, which possession was by him yielded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presents his petition to the Circuit Court, alleging a mistake in the conveyance, and that Smith purchased and Agee intended to convey the south half of the quarter-section owned by him, which half the plaintiff purchased of Smith, and which Smith supposed he had conveyed to him. Smith makes default, but Agee answers, admitting the mistake, but alleges that he intended to convey the north half of the northeast quarter. At the hearing the court allowed the plaintiff to amend his petition by claiming the west half of the quarter-section, and gave judgment for the reformation of the deed, so as to make it convey said west half.
The mistake is admitted, but the parties differ as to what was actually sold and what Agee designed to convey. The only improvement upon the quarter consisted of a house and a ten-acre field near the center, but the house and most of the lot proved to be on the southwest quarter. Agee and his son testify that when the land was sold to Smith he was told that the house was probably on the north half of the quarter-section, but if it proved to be south of the line it was to be given up to Agee. If that be true, it accounts for the fact that, at the sale, possession of the house was surrendered. For, unexplained, the fact of giving possession of the improvement would strongly tend to show that Agee designed to sell that portion of his land which covered it. Agee is very positive as to the portion of the land intended to be conveyed, and his testimony is strongly corroborated. After selling and surrendering to Smith, instead of going north upon that part of the quarter-section claimed to have been reserved by him, he actually goes south and builds a house and makes an improvement upon the south half....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...deed which is the solemn act of the parties, the evidence must be plain and conclusive, both to establish a mistake and a trust. Bunse v. Agee, 47 Mo. 270; Modrell v. Riddle, 82 Mo. 31. (6) Under the law force when plaintiff was married and when her father died and when the deed in controve......
-
Dougherty v. Dougherty
...own carelessness. Miller v. Railroad, 162 Mo. 441; Meredith v. Holmes, 105 Mo.App. 352. The proof must be cogent and convincing. Bunse v. Agee, 47 Mo. 270; Able v. Ins. Co., 26 Mo. 56; Modrell Riddle, 82 Mo. 31; Curd v. Brown, 148 Mo. 82. D. A. Rouner and L. F. Cottey for defendants. (1) Th......
-
Modrell v. Riddle
...367. (2) Evidence, to authorize the correction of such mistake must be clear and unequivocal. Downing v. McHugh, 3 Mo. App. 594; Bunse v. Agee, 47 Mo. 270; Able v. Insurance Co., 26 Mo. 56; 67 Pa. St. 462; Wharton on Evid. § 1019. Equity will not relieve against mistake when the complaining......
-
Hoge v. Hubb
... ... case by clear and positive evidence, so as not to leave a ... reasonable doubt in the mind of the chancellor. Bunse v ... Agee, 47 Mo. 270; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 73 Mo ... 78; Hunter v. Hopkins, 12 Mich. 227. (3) The ... evidence tends very strongly to show ... ...