Huff v. Price
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Citation | 50 Mo. 228 |
| Parties | MARY C. AND WM. S. HUFF, Plaintiffs in Error, v. ICHABOD C. PRICE, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Johnson Circuit Court.
R. Hicks, for plaintiffs in error.
A married woman has no capacity to contract for the sale of her real estate, or to convey it, except in the precise statutory mode. This is the rule at law, and equity follows the law. However meritorious the consideration, equity will not aid defects which are of the essence of the power, nor supply any circumstances for want of which the Legislature has declared the instrument void.
Elliott & Blodgett, for defendant in error.
I. A feme covert, as to her separate estate, can enter into contracts in the same manner as a feme sole; and her contracts, whether written or verbal, are equally binding (47 Mo. 512; Kimm v. Weippert, 46 Mo. 532; Tucker v. Gest, 46 Mo. 339; Schafroth v. Ambs, 46 Mo. 116; Bruner v. Wheaton, 46 Mo. 366; Miller v. Brown, 47 Mo. 512); and as the law now stands, property in the situation in which this is found must be regarded as the separate estate of the wife.
II. The defendant is entitled to a decree for specific performance, such as was rendered in the court below.
This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of 280 acres of land in Johnson county. The suit was commenced in the Johnson Court of Common Pleas, and removed by change of venue to the Circuit Court of Johnson county.
The defendant in his answer admits that the plaintiffs are the legal owners of the land, but sets up as an equitable defense that he made a contract with them for the purchase of the land, paid part of the purchase-money down, and agreed to pay the balance at certain periods afterwards; that with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs he entered into possession of the land under this contract, and made valuable and lasting improvements thereon, regarding himself as the owner, and tendered the balance of the purchase-money in payment for the land, but the tender was refused.
The evidence showed that the plaintiffs were husband and wife, and that the fee-simple title to this land was vested in the wife as a legal estate, subject, of course, to the husband's life estate by way of curtesy. The contract for the sale of the land to defendant was made in the name of the wife. The facts in regard to possession under the contract, the payment of part of the purchase-money, the making of valuable and lasting improvements, and the tender of the balance of the purchase-money, were substantially proved as alleged. The court, upon the final hearing of the case, decreed the title to the defendant.
The law is well established that a married woman cannot part with her legal estate in lands in this State except by deed, in which her husband joins, executed and acknowledged in accordance with the requirements of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivard v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.
...proof of execution which the omission of the public seal prevented the certificate of the officer from affording. Respondents cite Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 228, and Shaffer Kugler, 107 Mo. 58, 17 S.W. 698; neither of these cases are the least in point. The former was a contract for future conv......
-
Koehler v. Rowland
...for new trial on that ground. Ritchie v. Railway Co., 55 Kan. 58; R. S. 1909, sec. 2401; Railroad Co. v. Shortridge, 86 Mo. 662; Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 228; Shroyer v. 55 Mo. 264. WHITE, C. Roy, C., concurs. OPINION WHITE, C. The plaintiffs brought this suit under Section 2535, Revised Statu......
-
Horton v. Troll
...Stat. 1865, p. 466, secs. 1, 2; Cahoe v. Enders, 68 Mo. 224; Tatum v. St. Louis, 125 Mo. 647; Bartlett v. O'Donoghue, 72 Mo. 563; Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 228; Sutton Casseleggi, 77 Mo. 397; O'Reilly v. Kluender, 193 Mo. 576; Ruesh v. Brown, 101 Mo. 586; Gwin v. Smurr, 101 Mo. 552; Sarazin v. ......
-
Henry v. McKerlie
...claiming the title under the law of estoppel, when sufficient facts are present in his case to support a title by estoppel. Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 228. III. When the sale has been prematurely approved in the circuit court, as this is a court of general jurisdiction, the sale is valid and the......