Fellows v. Wise
| Decision Date | 28 February 1874 |
| Parties | JONATHAN G. FELLOWS, Appellant, v. REMUS WISE, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Linn Circuit Court.
A. W. Mullins, for Appellant.
W. H. Brownell and G. D. Burgess, for Respondent.
This was an action of ejectment to recover a tract of military bounty land in Linn County. The suit was commenced on the 27th of Sept., 1869.
The facts appearing at the trial, about which there was no dispute or contradictory evidence, were about as follows: One Moore, about 1857, having purchased of Talton Turner a tax title, for which he gave his note to said Turner, went into possession of the land in controversy. In 1859, the plaintiff, who then lived in Davidson county, Tennessee, and had some claim to this tract, came out to Missouri and negotiated with Moore for the purchase of said Moore's title and improvements, which resulted in the execution of a penal bond by Moore, binding him to convey to Fellows the land in controversy, together with all improvements on it, for the sum of $475, for which sum Fellows executed his note, payable on the 1st of March, 1860; and agreed also to pay to the estate of Talton Turner, the further sum of $200 together with interest which was due by said Moore, to said Turner. This title bond was executed on July 30th, 1859, and was recorded in the Recorder's office of Linn county, on the 1st of August, 1859, but the acknowledgment was not taken according to law.
This money, the $475 due Moore, was all paid by Fellows or his agent, to Moore, previous to his death, which occurred in 1866, and in that year, the $200 due to Turner was also paid to Turner's executors, who executed a deed to Fellows.
In Sept. 1869, the County Court, on the application of plaintiff, ordered a specific performance on the part of Moore's administrator, and a deed was accordingly executed dated Sept. 20th, 1869. Previous to this, on the 29th of Dec'r, 1868, a deed was executed by the heirs of Moore, to one Brownlee--a quitclaim deed for the consideration of $450--and subsequently, another conveyance, not given in evidence, was executed by Brownlee to one Richardson or Vorce, or both; and the defendant is a tenant under this title.
The other testimony in the case, relates to adverse possession and actual notice, and need not be particularly stated, except so far as to determine the propriety of the instructions given by the court. There is really no question of adverse possession in the case. Moore's occupancy after his sale to plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Black v. Banks
... ... prudent man on inquiry, is equivalent to notice. Adams v ... Gossom, 228 Mo. 566; Fellows v. Wise, 55 Mo ... 413; Zweigart v. Reed, 221 Mo. 33; State Bank v ... Frame, 112 Mo. 502; Barrett v. Davis, 104 Mo ... 549. (3) Where ... ...
-
National Bank of Commerce in St. Louis v. Francis
... ... charged with actual notice of all he would have learned had ... he inquired. [ Lee v. Bowman, 55 Mo. 400; Fellows ... v. Wise, 55 Mo. 413.] So that plaintiff does not, in its ... petition, and cannot successfully in its argument ... here, charge that ... ...
-
Sikes v. Turner
...not already have the information, prior to signing a contract of purchase. The law requires as much or else closes his mouth. Fellows v. Wise, 55 Mo. 413, 415; Drey Doyle, 99 Mo. 459, 468-9; King v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 226 Mo. 351, 371; Marshal v. Hill, 246 Mo. 1, 30-31; Taaffe v. Ke......
-
Black v. Banks
...an inquiry, where the facts would put an ordinarily prudent man on inquiry, is equivalent to notice. Adams v. Gossom, 228 Mo. 566; Fellows v. Wise, 55 Mo. 413; Zweigart v. Reed, 221 Mo. 33; State Bank v. Frame, 112 Mo. 502; Barrett v. Davis, 104 Mo. 549. (3) Where there had been no appearan......