Houx v. Seat
| Citation | 26 Mo. 178 |
| Parties | HOUX, Plaintiff in Error, v. SEAT et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1858 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
1. Where one of two adjoining proprietors grants permission to the other to join fences with him--the fence of each being upon his own land-- the license thus granted is a personal privilege and is revocable; a sale of his land by such proprietor amounts to a revocation of the license.
2. A purchaser who takes without notice of an agreement to join fences will not be bound thereby.
Error to Cooper Court of Common Pleas.
This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover damages for wrongfully removing a partition or division fence. Upon the trial of the cause in the Cooper Court of Common Pleas, to which the same had been taken by appeal, it appeared in evidence that in the year 1853 Houx, plaintiff, and Isaac Lionberger were adjoining proprietors; that in that year Houx and Lionberger each built a string or line of fence on his own land; that it was agreed between them that the fence built on Lionberger's land and that built on the land of plaintiff should be a division fence between their lands; that each should keep in repair his part of the fence; the plaintiff used and occupied the land on one side of the fence, and that Lionberger used and occupied the land on the other side, from 1853 to 1856; that in 1856 Lionberger sold his land to defendant Seat; that in May, 1857, the fence situated on the land thus sold by Lionberger was taken away by defendants and rebuilt about twenty feet further back upon the land bought by Seat; that the taking away of said fence exposed the premises of plaintiff to stock of all kinds; that plaintiff aided in keeping up the fence and caused some rails to be put upon that part situate on land owned by Lionberger.
The court, at the instance of defendants, instructed the jury as follows:
The jury found a verdict for defendants.
Dr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langenberg v. City of St. Louis
...under which defendant had built water pipes, and fact that defendant licensee made expensive improvements does not change situation. Houx v. Seat, 26 Mo. 178; Pitzman Boyce, 111 Mo. 387, 19 S.W. 1104. (7) When plaintiff demanded that city remove water pipes, it became city's duty to do so. ......
-
Sims v. Field
... ... sale, and any license thus existing was revoked by the sale ... in 1872. Sims v. Field, 66 Mo. 111; Houx v ... Seat, 26 Mo. 178 ... II ... The court erred in giving the plaintiff's first ... instruction. No issue was made by the ... ...
-
Sharp v. Cheatham
...Co. v. Ry. Co., 73 Mo. 389. (3) But if the contract runs with the land, defendant is not bound thereby unless he had notice thereof. Houx v. Seat, 26 Mo. 178; Abraham v. Krantler, 24 Mo. 69. (4) Defendant had no actual notice of the contract. His quit-claim deed vested title in him without ......
-
Kohlleppel v. Owens, WD
...592 S.W.2d 854, 858 (Mo.App.1979). A conveyance of land to which a license appertains constitutes a revocation of such license. Houx v. Seat, 26 Mo. 178 (1858). In view of the attendant facts and standing of the parties in this litigation, no equitable considerations surface to question the......