Mitchell v. McMullen
Citation | 59 Mo. 252 |
Parties | JEREMIAH X. MITCHELL, Respondent, v. THOMAS MCMULLEN, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 28 February 1875 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Chariton Court of Common Pleas.
Geo. W. Easley, with Casper W. Bell, for Appellant.
I. The evidence and finding of the court both showing two-ninths of the title to be outstanding, and the plaintiff insolvent, the contract should have been rescinded. When the legal title cannot be conveyed and the vendee must resort to a court of equity to establish his title, notwithstanding the conveyance of all the rights of the vendor the court will not compel him to pay the purchase money. (Hill. on Vend., [2 Ed.] p. 244; Bank, &c. vs. Hagner, 1 Pet., 455.) The vendee cannot be compelled to take a doubtful title; and a title is doubtful when other persons may fairly question it. (Hill. Vend., [2 Ed.] p. 210, § 3.)
Kinley & Kinley, for Respondent.
I. Before the court will grant the relief sought by appellant, it must conclusively appear that Mitchell willfully made false statements concerning the title to said property with intent to cheat and defraud McMullen; that McMullen relying solely upon these representations, purchased said property, and was injured by reason of said representations being untrue.
II. Equity will not enjoin the collection of notes for price of land sold, after execution of deed, on account of failure of title, without eviction of purchaser, actual or constructive, by purchase of outstanding title, unless fraudulent practices in the sale of said property and fraudulent representations concerning the title to the property sold, are clearly proved to have been resorted to by the vendor and payee of said notes.
III. None but the heirs, creditors, or distributees can object to an administrator purchasing property of the estate being sold at administrator's sale, and then only by attacking the sale before confirmation by Probate Court, or by petition to redeem in a court of equity.
The action in this case was upon a note for $750, which was in part consideration of a sale and conveyance of certain lots in the city of Brunswick, in the county of Chariton.
The defense was, first, that the vendor fraudulently misrepresented the exact exterior lines of the lots, by stating that they were marked by the fences around them, which was untrue; and that the defendant was damaged by such false representations to the amount of $1000; and, second, that the plaintiff represented to the defendant that he had a good title, when the title was in the heirs of his wife, then dead; and therefore the defendant asked a rescission of the contract.
In regard to the first ground of defense, the court submitted issues to a jury, which were found for the plaintiff, and the court adopted the verdict; and as no stress is laid here upon this branch of the case, the details of the issues, evidence, instructions and decree of the court in reference thereto may be omitted. The court in its decree found, upon this point, “that the plaintiff did misrepresent and conceal the true location of the northern boundary of the lots, at the time negotiations were pending for their sale; but that when defendant finally executed the contract of sale, by paying a part of the purchase money, executing his notes for the balance, and accepting a deed from plaintiff to the lots, he had actual notice of all the facts in the premises; that the fencing represents the true southern boundary of said lots as originally surveyed and marked; that the adjoining proprietors have so acted as to be estopped from disputing said boundary, and that during the pendency of this suit they have executed and delivered to plaintiff a deed to the disputed ground.”
In regard to the second and main ground of defense, the court found upon the hearing as follows:
The court therefore decrees that the contract remain undisturbed; that the plaintiff recover the amount of the note with interest, but that as the plaintiff was insolvent, a stay of execution be allowed, and the collection of the second note be enjoined, until the plaintiff executes a bond with security to be approved by the court, to secure and save harmless the defendant against any assertion of the two-ninths of the title outstanding; and the plaintiff and defendant were adjudged to pay each one-half of the costs.
It may be observed that the plaintiff's title was derived from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ambruster v. Ambruster
...respondents. (1) A sale by an administrator to himself of property of the estate is not void but is, at most, merely voidable. Mitchell v. McMullen, 59 Mo. 252; Benson v. Benson, 97 Mo. App. 460; 24 C.J. 636, sec. 1592; L.R.A. 1918-B. 26; Otis v. Kennedy, 107 Mich. 312; Scott v. Gamble, 9 N......
-
Ambruster v. Ambruster
... ... Mitchell v ... McMullen, 59 Mo. 252; Benson v. Benson, 97 ... Mo.App. 460; 24 C. J. 636, sec. 1592; L. R. A. 1918-B, 26; ... Otis v. Kennedy, 107 ... ...
-
Patterson v. Booth
...Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., sec. 958; Martin v. Wyncoop, 12 Ind. 266; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Harper v. Mansfield, 58 Mo. 17; Mitchell v. McMullen, 59 Mo. 252; Clarke Drake, 63 Mo. 354; Roberts v. Mosely, 64 Mo. 507; Shaw v. Shaw, 86 Mo. 594; Thorpe v. McMullen, 1 Gilman, 614; Rice v. Morris......
-
Mercer County State Bank of Manhaven, a Corp. v. Hayes
... ... 315, 81 Am. Dec. 632; Vick v ... Percy, 7 Smedes & M. 256, 45 Am. Dec. 303; Guice v ... Sellers, 43 Miss. 56, 5 Am. Rep. 476; Mitchell v ... McMullen, 59 Mo. 252; Edwards v. Bodine, 26 ... Wend. 114; Re Livingston, 9 Paige, 445; Hill v ... Butler, 6 Ohio St. 217; Van Lew ... ...