Deichmann v. Deichmann
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 107 |
| Parties | AUGUST J. DEICHMANN et al., Appellants, v. JOHN DEICHMANN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court.
Chas. Dandt and Wm. A. Alexander, for appellants, cited Brock v. Hidy, 13 Ohio St. 306.
Orrick & Emmons, for respondent.
This is a petition for the specific performance of a contract for the sale by defendant to Frederick Deichmann, the father and husband of the plaintiffs, during Deichmann's life, of the undivided half of some seventy acres of land situate in St. Charles county. In regard to some of the allegations of the petition, the testimony is contradictory; but it is undisputed that the legal title was in defendant, and that on the 15th of August, 1864, he and Frederick Deichmann executed a written agreement by which they entered into partnership in regard to the land in controversy, and that Frederick was to have half of the land and crops. The consideration is not very clearly stated, but the language must mean that Frederick was to pay the balance then due upon the land. John was unmarried, and it is undisputed that Frederick and his wife went upon the farm; that his wife kept house without assistance for both John and Frederick, did all their washing, cooking and mending, and aided them in outdoor work; that all three gave their whole energies to improving and working the place, and that everything, land, stock and crops, were regarded as the joint property of the brothers. At the death of Frederick, in August, 1868, John administered the partnership property, and inventoried the farm and everything upon it as belonging jointly to himself and Frederick. Before Frederick's death John had executed a deed to him of an undivided half, but the witnesses disagree as to whether it was ever delivered, John claiming that it was not, and was destroyed before his death because Deichmann could not pay for his interest, and his widow testifying that it was destroyed after his death. There is direct contradiction also in regard to the amount to be paid, i. e., the cost of the land and the amount due upon it, and as to what was actually paid by Frederick. The deed to John mentions $500 as the consideration, but he testifies that he paid much more; and as to an item of a little over $100, which was paid by Frederick, John claims that it was the product of the farm, while others testify that it was Frederick's private property.
The plaintiff's equity is clear, but the amount due John is not ascertained and cannot be without an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...by this section. Jarrett v. Morton, supra, was an action at law, quantum meruit to recover the services of a slave. In Deichmann et al. v. Deichmann, 49 Mo. 107, however, a case always referred to as a leading authority, a suit for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land......
- Turner v. Johnson
-
Girard v. St. Louis Car Wheel Company
...tender can be insisted upon, as a bar to legal action, where the facts show that the tender would have been rejected. Deichmann v. Deichmann (1871), 49 Mo. 107; Westlake v. St. Louis (1882), 77 Mo. In such a state of the facts a tender would be what Mr. Bigelow calls, an idle ceremony. Bige......
-
Curtis v. Sexton
...v. Reilly, 61 Mo. 565; Mastin v. Grimes, 88 Mo. 489; Girard v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 371; Blanton v. Kentucky Dis. Co., 120 F. 318; Dichman v. Dichman, 49 Mo. 107. Tender was and that there was no necessity for plaintiff to tender a deed, the evidence clearly establishing that a tender would b......