Newham v. Kenton
Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
Citation | 79 Mo. 382 |
Parties | NEWHAM v. KENTON, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court.--HON. E. J. BROADDUS, Judge.
REVERSED.
John L. Mirick for appellant.
Hale & Sons for respondents.
This is a bill in equity. The petition states that plaintiffs are husband and wife; that the wife contracted with the defendant Kenton, to the effect that, as her agent and trustee, he would purchase certain described real estate in the town of Norborne, in Carroll county; that she furnished the money, and the title was to be taken in the name of the defendant, and immediately thereafter he should convey to her; that the money was accordingly furnished, the purchase made by defendant and the title conveyed to him by the vendor. The petition then averred that soon after said purchase the plaintiff, with the consent of defendant, entered into the possession and enjoyment of the premises, and had ever since so held the same, making large and lasting improvements thereon, such as erecting a house, etc., at the outlay of about $1,000. It is averred that the defendant, though often requested thereto, has wholly failed, refused and neglected to make conveyance to the plaintiff Margaret, as he had agreed to do, and as in equity, etc., he was bound to do. The prayer of the petition is for a decree requiring the defendant to execute to her a good and sufficient deed vesting in her the right and title so acquired by defendant, and for proper relief. The answer is a general denial.
The bill of exceptions recites that:
Upon this state of the case the court rendered the following decree:
From this decree, after an ineffectual motion for a new trial and in arrest, the defendant has appealed. The question to be decided is, as to the propriety and right of this decree.
It was ever the rule in equity to set out with particularity and the utmost circumspection as to truth, the facts forming the gravamen of the complaint. The bill being addressed to “the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hecker v. Bleish
...cannot declare upon one cause of action and recover upon another and different cause of action. [Harris v. Railroad, 37 Mo. 308; Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo. 382.] In Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. v. Donovan, 147 Mo. 622, it was held that in a plain ejectment action plaintiff, if entitled t......
-
Carpenter v. Reliance Realty Co.
...Mo.App. 349; Trigg v. Taylor, 27 Mo. 245; Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. 315; Minton v. Stute, 125 Mo. 181; Whetstone v. Shaw, 70 Mo. 575; Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo. 382; Goodman v. Crowley, 161 Mo. 657. Second, plaintiff in this action could not have maintained this action by relying upon the contra......
-
Yarbrough v. W. A. Gage & Co.
...proof. McKnight v. Bright, 2 Mo. 510; Evans v. Gibson, 29 Mo. 223; Miltenberger v. Morrison, 39 Mo. 71; Cox v. Esteb, 68 Mo. 110; Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo. 382; Spindle v. Hyde, 247 Mo. 48. Even though the prayer in the bill is for general relief, still the judgment must be limited to the fa......
-
First National Bank of Mauch Chunk v. Rohrer
... ... 40, ... loc. cit. 51, 52; Clough v. Holden, 115 Mo. 336; ... Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 269; Baldwin v ... Whaley, 78 Mo. 186; Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo ... 382; Ross v. Ross, 81 Mo. 84; White v ... Rush, 58 Mo. 105; Cox v. Esteb, 68 Mo. 110. (2) ... The doctrine of the ... ...