Edington v. Nix
| Decision Date | 31 October 1871 |
| Citation | 49 Mo. 134 |
| Parties | DAVID E. EDINGTON, Plaintiff in Error, v. LYDIA C. NIX, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Iron Circuit Court.
Chase & Dinning, for plaintiff in error.
Dillingham, for defendant in error.
The petition in this case was very inartificially drawn, but it was evidently intended as a bill in equity, and as such it was treated by the court below, and upon that theory the trial was had. Its object was to set aside a deed made by plaintiff to defendant for certain lands in Iron county, upon the ground that the same was fraudulently obtained. The answer denied all the averments in the bill, and the evidence most conclusively fails to show that any fraud was practiced in procuring the conveyance.
It seems that there was a mutual exchange of lands between the parties. The plaintiff, by a general warranty deed, conveyed his lands in Iron county to the defendant, who by a like deed conveyed lands which she owned in Christian county to the plaintiff.
It is not shown that any misrepresentation was made by the defendant at the time the contract was consummated. When asked if her land was free from encumbrances, she said she was willing to make a warranty deed for the same. The truth is, she had no personal knowledge that there was any lien on the land. A short time previous to the exchange and transfer between the parties, proceedings had been commenced against the defendant by attachment in Christian county, where the land was situated, and the same was attached. She resided at the time in Iron county, and there was no personal service of the suit instituted in Christian county. The plaintiff in the attachment suit supposed that she was a non-resident, and procured service by publication.
Judgment was taken and the land sold thereunder, and at the sale one Williams became the purchaser. When the plaintiff went to Christian county to examine the land and look after his interest he found these facts to exist, and that Williams claimed the land by purchase at sheriff's sale. But he nevertheless got possession and rented the land to one Walker, who occupied it as his tenant. He then purchased the title of Williams for $50. Subsequently he sold the land to his tenant, Walker, for $300, who remained in possession; and to save the trouble and expense of getting the relinquishment of his wife's dower to the conveyance, she being in Iron county, an arrangement was made by which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Key v. Jennings
...and the vendor, selling in good faith, is not responsible for his title beyond his covenants. Barton v. Rector, 7 Mo. 528; Edington v. Nix, 49 Mo. 134. 3. The settled doctrine of this court is, that where a party buys a tract of land, receives a deed with a warranty, and goes into possessio......
-
Dobyns v. Rice
...the incumbrance, he could only have paid it off and set it up as an off-set, but could not have avoided his contract of purchase. Edington v. Nix, 49 Mo. 134. IV. The vendee having gone in under his contract of purchase, must either pay the purchase money or get out. He cannot hold on to th......
-
Dobyns v. Rice
...the incumbrance, he could only have paid it off and set it up as an off-set, but could not have avoided his contract of purchase. Edington v. Nix, 49 Mo. 134. IV. vendee having gone in under his contract of purchase, must either pay the purchase money or get out. He cannot hold on to that p......
- City of St. Charles v. Stewart