Goodfellow v. Stillwell

Decision Date31 October 1880
Citation73 Mo. 17
PartiesGOODFELLOW v. STILLWELL et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Moberly Court of Common Pleas.--HON. G. H. BURCKHARTT, Judge.

REVERSED.

Chas. A. Winslow for appellants.

Stillwell occupies the same relations to the security that he does to the note, of which the record shows he is a bona fide purchaser, and his rights thereto can only be affected in the same way. Logan v. Smith, 62 Mo. 455; Updegraft v. Edwards, 45 Iowa 513; Mechanics Bldg. Asso. v. Ferguson, 29 La. Ann. 548; Duncan v. Louisville, 13 Bush (Ky.) 378; s. c., 26 Am. 201.

HENRY, J.

The plaintiffs' suit was to enjoin the defendants from selling certain parcels of land lying in Randolph county, and the petition stated substantially, that on the 8th day of May, 1872, Hunt & Godfrey conveyed to Henry M. Porter a tract of ninety-five acres of land adjoining the town of Moberly, and out-lots No. 56, 78, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16, for the consideration of $19,150, one-third of which was then paid, and for the balance Porter executed two promissory notes, each for $6,383--one payable the 8th day of May, 1873, and the other the 8th day of May, 1874, and to secure their payment, executed a deed of trust conveying said land and lots to W. F. Barrows, trustee, and containing in addition to the usual stipulations, one constituting said Barrows the agent of Hunt & Godfrey to receive any payments of money on said notes, and to release from said deed of trust any portion of the land or lots which Porter might sell, at a price to be named by said Barrows, the latter receiving the purchase money, or notes for the same secured by deed of trust on the property so sold. June 19th, 1872, Porter sold the ninety-five acre tract to Wisdom & Rothwell, for $19,000--$6,000 of which was then paid to Barrows, and, for the balance they executed two promissory notes for $6,500 each, one falling due June 19th, 1873, the other June 19th, 1874. In July, 1872, Porter sold the out-lots to W. J. Hallock for $18,000, except out-lot No. 15, of which $6,000 was paid to Barrows, and for the balance Hallock executed two promissory notes for $6,000 each, one payable 28th day of March, 1873, and the other 28th day of December, 1873, which were placed in the hands of Barrows, who then released said out-lots, except 15, from the deed of trust executed by Porter to him. He had also released the ninety-five acre tract. Out-lot No. 15 had been subdivided, and the plaintiffs by purchase from Porter,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Patterson v. Booth
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 23 February 1891
    ...Neg. Inst., sec. 1241; Watson v. Hawkins, 60 Mo. 550, 554; Mitchell v. Ladew, 36 Mo. 526, 533; Logan v. Smith, 62 Mo. 455; Goodfellow v. Stilwell, 73 Mo. 17; Joerdens v. Schrimpf, 77 Mo. 385; Lee v. Clark, 89 Mo. 558. (8) In such case the rule as to what will constitute notice to such purch......
  • Lewis v. Schwenn
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 December 1886
    ...purchasers. Turk v. Funk, 68 Mo. 18; Linville v. Savage, 58 Mo. 248. Respondents cannot be protected as innocent purchasers. Goodfellow v. Stillwell, 73 Mo. 17; Merchant Wood, 27 Minn. 396; Digby v. Jones, 67 Mo. 104. Appellant's second instruction should have been given. Martin v. Jones, 7......
  • Henry v. Sneed
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 December 1889
    ...before maturity, and the mortgage passes as incident to and on the same footing with the note. Hagerman v. Sutton, 91 Mo. 521; Goodfellow v. Stillwell, 73 Mo. 17; Logan v. Smith, 58 Mo. 455; Carpenter v. Longan, 18 Wallace, 271; 2 Randolph Com. Paper, sec. 919. (8) It is now the settled law......
  • Kraemer v. Leber
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 April 1954
    ...defense against Mrs. Leber, a holder in due course, in the absence of a showing that she knew that such payments had been made, Goodfellow v. Stillwell, 73 Mo. 17; Grant v. Kidwell, 30 Mo. 455, so that, contrary to the finding of the chancellor, the full $4,500 was due upon the For the reas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT