Foster v. Breshears
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 55 Mo. 22 |
| Parties | PRISCILLA H. FOSTER, Respondent, v. LEVI R. BRESHEARS AND JOEL B. HOLBERT, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hickory Circuit Court.
Phelps & Kraft and Bray & Cravens, for Appellants.
Waldo P. Johnson, for Respondent.
This was an action of ejectment for lands in Hickory county, consisting of an eighty acre tract, and a quarter section of one hundred and sixty acres. There was no dispute as to the plaintiff's right to recover the eighty acres. The contest was in regard to the quarter section. Both parties claimed title through James E. Foster, from James Dunn, Jr., as the common source of title. The plaintiff stood upon the following chain of title.
1. A deed from James E. Foster, to herself, duly executed and acknowledged on the 5th day of August, 1869.
2. A deed from James Dunn, Jr., to said James E. Foster, duly executed and acknowledged on the 4th day of February, 1858. Neither of which deeds was recorded till after the commencement of the suit. The suit was commenced on the 26th day of August, 1869, by filing the petition on that day. The summons was not issued till in November, and served in December, 1869.
The defendant Breshears, relied on the following chain of title:
1. A deed from his co-defendant Holbert, duly executed and acknowledged on the 28th day of September, 1867, and recorded on the 6th day of January, 1868.
2. A sheriff's deed to Holbert, dated the 5th day of May, 1864, and acknowledged in May, 1870, from the recitals of which it appears, that the sale was made during a session of the County Court, under an execution issued on a judgment of the County Court, rendered against James E. Foster, on the 16th day of December, 1862, in favor of Hickory county, to the use of school township, No. 1 of said county, for principal and interest of a school debt,
3. A quit claim deed executed to the defendant Holbert, by James Dunn, Jr., on the 16th day of November, 1869, and duly acknowledged on that day.
The evidence showed that when Holbert applied to Dunn, for the quit claim deed, he told him that he had no claim to the land; Holbert replied that the record showed no deed from him, and he then executed a quit claim. The case was submitted to the court sitting as a jury, and the court found for the plaintiff, and gave judgment accordingly.
The judgment is for the right party. It is conceded here by both parties, that the sheriff's deed to Holbert,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. White
...payment is necessary to a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Paul v. Fulton, 25 Mo. 156; Bishop v. Scudder, 46 Mo. 472; Foster v. Holbert, 55 Mo. 22. (6) The plea of the statute of limitations was a good defence. After the lapse of ten years a mortgagee can neither in equity nor at law......
-
First National Bank of Mauch Chunk v. Rohrer
...Hoagland v. Wilson, 15 Neb. 320; Davis v. Ownsby, 14 Mo. 170; Valentine v. Havener, 20 Mo. 133; Stillwell v. McDonald, 39 Mo. 283; Foster v. Holbert, 55 Mo. 22; Sappington v. Oeschli, 49 Mo. 244; Banking Co. v. Duncan, 86 N.Y. 221; Fulsom v. Clemmons, 11 Mass. 277; Stewart v. Hopkins, 30 Oh......
-
First Nat. Bank of Attleboro v. Hughes
...will be postponed to the lien of an attachment. Certainly it would not avail against a subsequently recorded conveyance. Foster v. Breshears, 55 Mo. 22. " To him to such protection," said Bliss, J., " he must have parted with something of value, otherwise he is not injured; and such is the ......
-
Mason v. Black
...consideration, receives a quit-claim deed therefor, such a one is not an innocent purchaser. Kearney v. Vaughn, 50 Mo. 284; Foster v. Breshear, 55 Mo. 22; Stoefel v. Schroeder, 62 Mo. 147. (7) Notice to an agent is notice to the principal. Jackson v. Sharp, 9 Johns. 163; Rhodes v. Out calt,......