Holland v. Rongey
| Decision Date | 28 March 1902 |
| Citation | 168 Mo. 16,67 S.W. 568 |
| Parties | HOLLAND et al. v. RONGEY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Carter county; J. L. Fort, Judge.
Action by James Holland and another against William H. Rongey. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Munger & Munger, for appellant. Daniel Huett and Jno. C. Brown, for respondents.
This is an action in ejectment for the possession of the N. W. ¼ and the N. E. ¼ and the W. ½ of lot 2 of the N. E. ¼ of section 5, township 25, of range 1, in Carter county. The petition is in the usual form. Defendant, in his answer to the petition, denied the ownership or possession of the W. ½ of the N. W. ¼ and the N. E. ¼ and the W. ½ of lot 2 of the N. E. ¼ of section 5, township 25, of range 1, but admitted that he was, and had been for the last six years, the owner of the remainder of the land described in the petition, and averred that he was the head of a family during all that time and prior thereto, and resided upon the remainder of said land as aforesaid, with his family, and occupied it as a homestead. The case was tried by the court, a jury being waived. There was judgment for plaintiff for the possession of all the land sued for, from which defendant, after unavailing motion for a new trial, appeals.
On the 15th day of March, 1893, defendant, who was then, and ever since has been, the head of a family, purchased from Malinda Tabor and others the S. E. ¼ of the N. W. ¼ and the S. E. ¼ of section 5, township 25, of range 1, and placed for record in the recorder's office of Carter county the deed to him therefor on the 30th day of May, 1893, and from the time of his purchase occupied the land, with his family, as a homestead. On October 3, 1894, defendant bought at sheriff's sale the N. E. ¼ of the S. W. ¼ of the same section, township, and range, and received a sheriff's deed therefor, which he also had recorded in the recorder's office of said county on the 30th day of October, 1894. This tract has also been occupied by defendant and his family since shortly after his purchase. Some time prior to May 15, 1893, defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scheer v. Brooks
...payment only, the creditor has the right to tender the note into court for cancellation and to sue upon the original transaction. Holland v. Rongey, 168 Mo. 16; McMurray Taylor, 30 Mo. 263; Bertiaux v. Dillon, 20 Mo.App. 603; Schepflin v. Dessar, 20 Mo.App. 569; Bank v. Peterman, 21 Mo.App.......
-
McCormack Harvesting Machine Company v. Blair
...then said notes did not operate as an extinguishment or liquidation of said cause of action. Bertiaux v. Dillon, 20 Mo.App. 603; Holland v. Rongey, 168 Mo. 16; McMurray Taylor, 30 Mo. 263; Howard v. Jones, 33 Mo. 583; Powell v. Blow, 34 Mo. 485; Block v. Dorman, 51 Mo. 31; Leabo v. Good, 67......
-
Townsend v. Moseley
...proof that the $ 4000 note was accepted by respondent from Errett Moseley as payment of the claim of respondent against Moseley. Holland v. Rongey, 168 Mo. 16, l. c. Glass v. Heller, 287 S.W. 873; Chorn v. Zollinger, 143 Mo.App. 191, l. c. 195; McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Mo. 263, l. c. 267; Doe......
-
Townsend v. Moseley et al.
...was paid by the acceptance of the note. Stanton v. Jones, 59 S.W. (2d) 648, l.c. 652; Glass v. Heller, 287 S.W. 871, l.c. 873; Holland et al. v. Rongey, 168 Mo. 16, l.c. 19; McMurray v. Taylor, 30 Mo. 263, l.c. 267; Chorn v. Zollinger, 143 Mo. App 191, l.c. 195; Doebling et al. v. Loos et a......