Culligan v. Wingerter
| Citation | 57 Mo. 241 |
| Parties | THOMAS CULLIGAN Defendant in Error, v. JACOB WINGERTER, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 August 1874 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Error to Buchanan Circuit Court.
Bennett Pike, for Plaintiff in Error.
B. R. Vineyard, for Defendant in Error.
This was an action in the nature of a bill in equity to bar or foreclose an alleged right of redemption in a tract of land, which had been bought by the plaintiff at an execution sale against the defendant.
The petition alleges, that the defendant's land was being sold under execution when he requested the plaintiff to purchase it, and agreed with him, if he would purchase it, that he would redeem it or re-purchase it in a few days thereafter, by paying back to him the amount of the purchase money, with ten per centum per annum interest from the time of such purchase till the redemption was made.
The petition further alleges that the plaintiff, with this understanding, became the purchaser of the land at the price of twenty-nine hundred and twenty-five dollars, and took the sheriff's deed for the same; that afterwards, and within a month after he received the sheriff's deed, he offered to convey all his right so acquired, to the defendant, if he would pay to him the amount of the purchase money and ten per cent. interest thereon according to their agreement, and that he tendered to the defendant a deed therefor duly executed and acknowledged by him; but the defendant refused to pay the money or accept the deed.
The petition prays, that unless the defendant shall, before judgment is rendered, pay to the plaintiff the amount of the purchase money and interest, his right to redeem may be foreclosed and forfeited, and that all his equity in the land be vested in the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff be vested with the title in fee simple.
The only material issue made by the defendant's answer, was a denial that he made the alleged contract for the re-purchase or redemption of the land purchased by the plaintiff at the sheriff's sale.
On the trial the plaintiff offered to prove the contract by parol evidence consisting of his own testimony. The defendant objected to this parol proof. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant excepted.
The plaintiff testified that a parol contract for the redemption of the land was made, as stated in the petition. The defendant, on the other hand, testified that no such contract was made. The court gave judgment for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fountain v. Lewiston Nat. Bank
...23 C. C. A. 13; Jarrett v. Johnston, 11 Gratt. 327; Stowell v. Tucker, 7 Idaho 312, 62 P. 1033; Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562; Culligan v. Wingerter, 57 Mo. 241; Curtis Hulbird, 46 Ill.App. 419; Browne on Statute of Frauds, 5th ed., sec. 123; Grice v. Woodworth, 10 Idaho 459, 80 P. 912, 69 L.......
-
Davis v. Holloway
...character, defendant could not maintain an action at law for damages for the alleged breach. [Lydick v. Holland, 83 Mo. 703; Culligan v. Wingerter, 57 Mo. 241; Hillis Rhodes, 205 Mo.App. 439; Sursa v. Cash, 171 Mo.App. 396.] For the same reason defendant could not use the contract as a grou......
-
Baker v. Farmers' Bank of Conway
...35 Mo. 218 and 16 Mass. 39; Davis Bros. v. Callahan, 66 Mo.App. 176. Land can neither be bought or sold without a writing. Culligan v. Wingerter, 57 Mo. 241; Windever v. Baker, 121 Mo. 297. The purchase of is as much within the statute as the sale. Lucket v. Williamson, 37 Mo. 388; Schlanla......
-
State ex rel. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Haid
... ... City Court of Appeals. Ivory v. Murphy, 36 Mo. 534; ... Luckett v. Williamson, 37 Mo. 389; Culligan v ... Wingerter, 57 Mo. 241; Walker v. Owen, 79 Mo ... 563; Dunham v. Hartman, 153 Mo. 625; Schlanker ... v. Smith, 27 Mo.App. 516. (2) The ... ...