Graham v. Roseburgh

Decision Date31 October 1870
Citation47 Mo. 111
PartiesALEX. R. GRAHAM, Respondent, v. WILLIAM ROSEBURGH et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Sixth District Court.

H. S. Lipscomb and J. F. Benjamin, for respondent.

James Carr, for appellants.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit for specific performance, and the petition states substantially that John Graham, the father of the plaintiff, resided in Pittsburg, Pa., and died in February, 1869; that he was seized in fee simple of several tracts of land lying in the State of Missouri, among which was a tract in Shelby; that by the provisions of his last will and testament, dated March 20, 1866, he devised the residue of all his estate to defendants as executors and trustees, for the use and benefit of his three sons, one of whom was plaintiff, during their respective lives, and, at their deaths, to be distributed to their children then living; that defendants accepted the trust, and that one of the sons of the testator died previous to the death of the testator, leaving no descendants; that in August, 1868, the testator promised and agreed in writing, that in consideration of natural love and affection, and the further consideration that one McMurtry, who was the father-in-law of plaintiff, would deed to plaintiff forty acres of timber land near the tract before mentioned, he would convey to plaintiff the same tract as soon as he was able to come to Missouri, and that he authorized plaintiff to take possession of said land and make improvements thereon; that by virtue of said promise he took possession of the land, the same being all prairie, and erected thereon an expensive dwelling, and made other valuable improvements, and is still in possession; that the condition contained in the promise, that McMurtry should convey the forty acres of timber land, has been fully complied with, and that the testator came to Missouri in the fall of 1868, for the purpose, among other things, of executing a deed conveying the land to plaintiff, but upon his arrival in this State he was prostrated with sickness and unable to do so, and that he lingered and finally died without making the deed. The bill, in conclusion, asked for a decree vesting the title in the plaintiff.

The answer denied all the allegations in reference to the agreement or promise for the conveyance of the land, and for a further defense set up that at the time of making the will, and at the time of the death of the testator, the testator was seized and possessed of a large amount of real, personal, and mixed property; that he owned a large and valuable tract of land in Ralls county, which he devised to defendants as trustees for the use of the plaintiff, for and during the term of his natural life, and then to his descendants; that, in addition to the foregoing specific devise to the defendants as truste...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sutorius v. Mayor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1943
    ...or claims in cases where there is a clear intention of the person from whom he derives one, that he should not enjoy both." Graham v. Roseburgh, 47 Mo. 111, 114. a person accepts a gift under a will, deed or a contract, he must also accept the burdens, if any imposed thereby, or he must rej......
  • Moseley v. Bogy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1917
    ...Horner, 4 Mod. 89, 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 177.]" Certainly it will be construed "to pass an estate of inheritance if he has one." In Graham v. Roseburgh, 47 Mo. 111, 114, it was "The principle of election is frequently applied by courts of equity in cases of wills, and rests upon the obligation im......
  • Sutorius v. Mayor
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1943
    ...or claims in cases where there is a clear intention of the person from whom he derives one, that he should not enjoy both." Graham v. Roseburgh, 47 Mo. 111, 114. "If a person accepts a gift under a will, deed, or a contract, he must also accept the burdens, if any imposed thereby, or he mus......
  • Lansdale v. Dearing
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1943
    ...one that he should not enjoy both." Story's Eq. Jur. 1917, sec. 1451. The doctrine has long been recognized in this State. Graham v. Roseburgh, 47 Mo. 111; O'Reilly Nicholson, 45 Mo. 160; Pemberton v. Pemberton, 29 Mo. 409; Sutorius v. Mayor, 350 Mo. 1235, 170 S.W.2d 387, 171 S.W.2d 69; In ......
  • 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