Cavin v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 January 1857 |
| Citation | 24 Mo. 221 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAVIN, Respondent, v. SMITH & KERR, Appellants. |
1. Although declarations of a party in possession of property against his interest are admissible in interest against one claiming under him, they must, to be competent evidence, be made prior to the inception of the successor's title.
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.
The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court when compared with the report of the same case when on error before, in 21 Mo. 444.
Napton, for appellants.
F. P. Wright, for respondent.
The question upon this trial was, to whom the mare belonged at the time she was seized by the constable under the execution against Ray to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff insisted that she belonged to him, and was in Ray's possession, if at all, under a contract that the latter should have her upon his completing certain work that he had undertaken for the plaintiff. When the cause was here before the judgment was reversed, because the court excluded Ray's declarations, made while he was in possession of the mare and before the constable's levy, to the effect that “he was to have the mare on condition that he completed the work he had undertaken for the plaintiff;” and now it must be reversed because the court has admitted Ray's declarations to the same effect, made after the constable had taken her in execution. The admissions of a party to a suit, made against his own interest, are of course competent evidence against himself, and it has been laid down generally (Cow. & Hill's Notes, p. 644, note 481) that these admissions, coming from one who was the owner of the property at the time, and being exclusively against his own interest when made, are equally admissible against his successors, both immediate and remote, to the same property, and that this rule is applicable to every species of property, real and personal, in possession and in action, and to every kind of transfer, whether by act of law or of the parties. This doctrine is put on the ground that the present claimant stands in the place of the person from whom his title is derived, and as his predecessor might have taken a qualified right, or sold, charged or modified an absolute right, and might also furnish all the necessary evidence to show its state in his own hands, the law will not allow third persons to be deprived of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Cox
...109; Hambright v. Brockman, 59 Mo. 52; Morey v. Staley, 54 Mo. 419; Criddle v. Criddle, 21 Mo. 522; Turner v. Belden, 9 Mo. 797; Cavin v. Smith, 24 Mo. 221; Watson Bissell, 27 Mo. 220; Salmon's Adm'r v. Davis, 29 Mo. 176; Currey v. Lackey, 35 Mo. 389. Generally, the admissions or declaratio......
-
McGuire v. Allen
... ... They tended to show, if this were at all ... material, that the gift was her voluntary act, and not the ... result of undue influence. Smith v. Wilton, 69 Mo ... 458; Wynn v. Cory, 48 Mo. 346; Dickerson v ... Chrisman, 28 Mo. 134; Robb v. Schmidt, 35 Mo ... 290; Anderson v. cPike, 86 Mo. 293; Cavin v. Smith, ... 24 Mo. 221 ... W. J ... Ward, also, for appellant ... (1) A ... blank indorsement of a ... ...
-
Knapp v. Knapp
...evidence tending to show in whom the real ownership and title rested. Meier v. Meier, 105 Mo. 411; Anderson v. McPike, 86 Mo. 293; Cavin v. Smith, 24 Mo. 221. It, follows that the admission of the appellant, made on the 9th day of February, 1903, to the effect that the money then in her pos......
-
Kingsland v. Drum
...to Drum was given, and while Eisenberg was in possession of the property. 1 Greenleaf Ev., § 190. See also 21 Mo. 522 and 444; 36 Mo. 326; 24 Mo. 221. It was for plaintiffs to show, as the first necessary step to make out their case, that it was agreed between plaintiffs and Eisenberg that ......