Otto v. Young
Decision Date | 01 March 1910 |
Citation | 127 S.W. 9,227 Mo. 193 |
Parties | OTTO v. YOUNG et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; H. L. McCune, Judge.
Suit by W. H. Otto against Robert Young, Jr., and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant Robert Young, Jr., and others of the defendants appeal. Affirmed.
H. C. Meriwether and C. E. Denham, for appellants. Saml. J. McCulloch and Karnes, New & Krauthoff, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a decree requiring of appellants specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. The petition was in two counts, the first being in the nature of a bill to quiet title under section 650, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 667), but when the trial came the plaintiff dismissed as to that count. The second count on which the cause went to trial, and on which the decree appealed from was rendered, states substantially as follows: Under date September 12, 1904, defendant Robert Young, Jr., executed a contract to sell to the plaintiff the land in question for the price of $6,000, of which $100 was deposited with the defendant Robert Young, Jr., at the time, and $5,900 was to be paid him upon his delivering to the plaintiff a warranty deed, the title having been found to lie in him, and plaintiff tenders into court, for the use and benefit "of whom it may concern," the balance of the contract price, $5,900, or so much thereof as the court may by its decree order plaintiff to pay. That the land in suit was owned by Robert Young, Sr., in his lifetime, now deceased, who was the father of defendant Robert Young, and who for identification is in the petition called Robert Young, Sr., while defendant Robert is called Robert Young, Jr. That by the will of Robert Young, Sr., the title to this property passed to the defendants, his widow and children, and they had all conveyed their interests to the defendant Robert Young, Jr., or to such person as he may have named. The defendant Manter also had an interest in the land which he had in like manner conveyed to defendant Robert Young, Jr. That defendants German, the unknown heirs and widow of George R. Hewitt and John Edwards, each claim an interest in the land, and, if their claims are found to be valid, that the plaintiff be allowed a diminution in the agreed purchase price to the extent of the value of their claims. That certain special tax assessments were at the date of the contract a lien on the land, and therefore the balance of the purchase money to be paid by plaintiff should be diminished by that much. In the last clause of the petition plaintiff asserts that certain acts should be required of defendants to perfect the title that he should receive from Robert Young, Jr.; but, as none of those acts was required in the decree, it is unnecessary to state them here. The prayer of the petition was for "such relief as to the court may seem meet and proper."
To that petition defendant Robert Young, Jr., filed an answer, in which he admitted the execution of the contract of September 12, 1904, for the sale of the land in question, and filed with his answer as an exhibit thereto a copy of the contract. Further answering, he stated that the contract was "purely optional"; that plaintiff by its terms had 20 days in which to investigate the title and report to defendant any defects found, and the seller was to have 30 days in which to remedy the defect, and, if not remedied within the time, and no extension thereof agreed on, the contract was to become void; that plaintiff did not give notice of defects in 20 days, and when given the defects were of such a character as could not be remedied in 30 days;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Terminal Railway Co.
...house at Oak Street. State ex rel. v. Harter, 188 Mo. 516; Perry v. Strawbridge, 209 Mo. 621; Strottman v. Railroad, 211 Mo. 227; Otto v. Young, 227 Mo. 193; Sconce v. Surmeyer Co., 258 Mo. 616; People ex rel. Railroad v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 231 N.Y. 1; Highway Commissioners v. Railroad, 148 ......
-
Brackett v. Masonry & Contracting Co.
...S.W. 176; Totman v. Christopher, 237 S.W. 822; Coulter v. Independence, 168 Mo. App. 710; Zasemowich v. Am. Mfg. Co., 213 S.W. 799; Otto v. Young, 227 Mo. 193. It is not necessary that instructions be in the exact language of the petition but only that they come within the purview of the pl......
-
Rose v. Missouri Dist. Telegraph Co.
... ... 956; ... Applegate v. Railroad, 252 Mo. 173; Chandler v ... Railroad, 251 Mo. 592; Crawford v. Stock Yards ... Co., 215 Mo. 394; Young v. Waters-Pierce Oil ... Co., 185 Mo. 634; 45 C. J. 819, 820, sec. 227; 29 Cyc ... 484. (b) One who expressly or impliedly invites the servant ... 860, 168 Mo.App ... 710.] It is sufficient if the pleader states the facts and ... leaves the court to find the law. [Otto v. Young, 227 Mo ... 193, 127 S.W. 9.] ... It is ... contended (a) that plaintiff assumed the risk of injury, and ... (b) that ... ...
-
Brackett v. James Black Masonry & Contracting Co.
...S.W. 176; Totman v. Christopher, 237 S.W. 822; Coulter v. Independence, 168 Mo.App. 710; Zasemowich v. Am. Mfg. Co., 213 S.W. 799; Otto v. Young, 227 Mo. 193. It is not necessary instructions be in the exact language of the petition but only that they come within the purview of the pleading......