Connor v. Eddy

• Decision Date: 31 March 1857
• Citation: 25 Mo. 72
• Parties: CONNOR, Appellant, v. EDDY et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

25 Mo. 72

CONNOR, Appellant,

v.EDDY et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1857.

1. Where a purchaser of land accepts from his vendor a conveyance with full warranty of title, there being no fraud in the sale, and the possession of the purchaser remaining undisturbed, he cannot be relieved against the payment of the purchase money on the mere ground of a defect of title.

2. Where a purchaser of land executes a deed of trust, with warranty of title, to secure to the vendor the payment of the purchase money, he is not estopped by his warranty to avail himself of any relief to which he would otherwise be entitled by virtue of the vendor's covenants to himself.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

The petition in this cause sets forth substantially that plaintiff, Connor, became the purchaser, at a sale by Joseph A. Eddy and Jabish B. Eddy, of certain lots in a subdivision of a tract known as the Sarpy arpent; that the said Eddys conveyed the same to plaintiff by deed with general warranty; that by deed of the same date plaintiff conveyed said lots to Messrs. Belt & Priest (also made defendants herein) in trust to secure the purchase money unpaid, for which he had executed and delivered three several promissory notes; that in their handbills and publications of sale, and also at the time of sale, the title of the Eddys was declared to be undoubted and perfect; that he, plaintiff, purchased relying upon said representation; that in these representations gross fraud was practiced upon plaintiff, inasmuch as the title of said Eddys is neither undoubted nor perfect; that said Eddys have not a perfect title to more than one-seventh of said land; that the remaining six-sevenths are claimed by one Gustavus W. Dreyer; that said Dreyer has instituted in this court proceedings to enforce his rights; the writ issued in said proceedings were served on Jabish E. Eddy, September 23, 1854, two days before the day of sale at which plaintiff purchased; that said writ was served on Joseph A. Eddy, September, 1854, two days after said day of sale, and before the execution of their deed of conveyence to plaintiff; that defendants studiously concealed the knowledge of these facts from plaintiff, that thereby he might be induced to complete his purchase; that by reason of the notoriety now given to the proceedings of the said Dreyer, no confidence is held in the title of said Eddys; that he cannot, therefore, sell or dispose of it, and, consequently, that it is utterly valueless to him, as it would not be prudent that he should build or improve upon it; that he has demanded a rescission of the contracts, but defendants will not consent; he, “therefore, prays for relief, that, having no adequate remedy at law, the contract be rescinded; that defendants surrender to him their notes by him given to them, and refund to him the amount of his purchase money, $125, and interest and costs.”

The court made the following finding of the facts: “That there had existed difficulties in the title of the Sarpy arpent; that the defendants, Eddys, as owners of the property, on the 25th of September, 1854, sold a number of lots in the Sarpy arpent, at which sale plaintiff purchased the lots as described in the petition; pursuant to the terms of the sale plaintiff paid one-fourth of the purchase money down, and for the balance gave...