Henry v. Adkins
Decision Date | 10 April 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 17988.,17988. |
Citation | 194 S.W. 264 |
Parties | HENRY et ux. v. ADKINS et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Frank Kelley, Judge.
Suit by R. Y. Henry and wife against F. R. Adkins and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
This is a proceeding in equity whereby R. Y. Henry and his wife, Alice May Henry, seek to have specifically performed a contract for sale of land executed by O. C. Ashby and wife, as vendors, to the said plaintiffs, as vendees. Before this suit was instituted Ashby and wife sold and conveyed said land to F. R. Adkins and R. L. Ward, who were also made defendants in this proceeding. Trial was had before the circuit court of Pemiscot county, resulting in a decree in favor of the defendants and dismissing plaintiffs' bill. Thereupon plaintiffs duly appealed to this court.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the issues involved may be stated substantially as follows: It appears that the Ashbys and Henrys were residents of the city of St. Louis. Ward and Adkins were residents of Pemiscot county. One C. J. Hill, a dealer in real estate and residing in the city of St. Louis negotiated a sale of said land to the plaintiffs, and on January 5, 1911, the following contract was executed between the Ashbys and Henrys. The contract was written on a printed form of contract and blank portions of the contract were filled in. The italicized portions of the contract represent the portions which were filled in.
The above contract was acknowledged and recorded in the recorder's office of Pemiscot county.
It appears that the Ashbys were unable to procure a quitclaim deed from the Mrs. Mitchell mentioned in the above contract before the 1st day of March, 1911, and the parties in order to extend the contract and give the Ashbys further time to perfect the title did, on the 27th day of February, 1911, make a new contract, which was as follows. The italicized portions represent the portions which were filled into the printed form of contract.
Mrs. Henry was the one mainly interested in the purchase of the land.
The husband of Mrs. Ruth Mitchell was at one time the owner of this land and conveyed the same, but Mrs. Mitchell had never relinquished her dower right therein. Repeated efforts were made to locate Mrs. Mitchell by both Ashby and a Mr. Gwin. Mrs. Mitchell's husband was a nephew of Mr. Gwin. It appears that Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell traveled extensively, one time Mr. Mitchell going to Russia as a horse jockey. Mrs. Mitchell was finally located at Urbana, Ohio, and, after considerable correspondence, she offered to make a quitclaim deed for the sum of $1,000. This was more than Mr. Ashby was willing to pay. Further negotiations were had, but nothing resulted therefrom prior to October 13, 1911, the date upon which Ward and Adkins purchased this land from Ashby.
In July, 1911, defendant R. L. Ward, who prior to that date had purchased the 120 acres adjoining this land on the west, was desirous of acquiring the land involved in this suit. Pursuant thereto he told Mr. Gwin that he would like to buy it, and asked Gwin to find out for him who owned it and at what price it could be purchased. At that time Gwin held a $1,000 indebtedness against the place, secured by deed of trust. Gwin ascertained that Ashby wanted $3,100 for the land. Ward then examined an abstract of title to the land which showed the above-mentioned contract between Ashby and the Henrys. Ward testified that he knew the land was levied upon under a judgment, and that he supposed that the Mrs. Henry mentioned in the contract was a sister of Ashby's, and that the contract had been made to shield Ashby from the judgment. Ward then prepared a warranty deed which was to be executed by Ashby and wife to himself and a quitclaim deed which he desired to have the Henrys sign. These deeds were sent through the bank, with draft attached. Later the deeds came back unsigned, and Ward then learned that Mrs. Henry was not the sister of Ashby, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herzog v. Ross
... ... support a decree in equity for specific performance ... Baldwin v. Corcoran, 7 S.W.2d 967; Henry v ... Adkins, 194 S.W. 264; Terry v. Michalak, 3 ... S.W.2d 701, 319 Mo. 290. (2) The alleged contract pleaded and ... filed with plaintiffs' ... ...
-
Baldwin v. Corcoran
... ... Louis; Hon. Victor H ... Falkenhainer, Judge ... ... Affirmed ... Henry ... H. Oberschelp for appellant ... (1) ... Annie L. Bradley executed the contract long before she was ... declared a person ... 220; Moon v. Gallupo, ... 65 N.J.Eq. 194; Barry v. Wortham, 96 Va. 87; ... Schmeling v. Kriesel, 45 Wis. 325; Henry v ... Adkins, 194 S.W. 264; Heller v. Jentzich, 260 ... S.W. 979; 36 Cyc. 597. (2) The contract coming within the ... terms of the Statute of Frauds parol ... ...
-
Jenkins v. Wiley
...defendant and Mrs. McClure and no notice lis pendens of record. Plaintiff's ground for refusal to accept the deed was untenable. Henry v. Adkins, 194 S.W. 264; Wayland v. Western Ind. Co., 148 S.W. 626. (6) was a very material advance in the value of the property from the time the objection......
-
Baldwin v. Corcoran
...(3 Ed.) secs. 145, 159; Mastin v. Halley, 61 Mo. 196; Lackawanna Coal & Iron Co. v. Long, 231 Mo. 605, 133 S.W. 35; Henry v. Adkins (Mo. Sup.), 194 S.W. 264; Terry v. Michalak (Mo. Sup.), 3 S.W. (2d) 701.] "The same equity that does nothing by halves will not perform blindly. Before it acts......