Paddock v. Lance

Decision Date19 December 1887
Citation6 S.W. 241,94 Mo. 283
PartiesPADDOCK et al. v. LANCE et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Cape Girardeau county; ROBERT S. WILSON, Judge.

Gaius Paddock and others brought suit against the defendants, Henry D. Lance and others, to set aside a trustee's deed to the wife of defendant Lance, and a subsequent trust deed executed by her. The court set aside the two conveyances, and also decreed that the plaintiffs' title acquired at an execution sale was invalid. Plaintiffs appeal.

Oliver & Limbaugh, for appellants. Cramer & Wilson, for appellees.

BLACK, J.

The plaintiffs recovered a judgment against the defendant Henry D. Lance in January, 1884, on a note dated in 1880. They purchased the one acre of land here in question at a sale made under an execution issued on the judgment, the amount bid being less than $100. The sale was made in May, 1884. Lance acquired the property in May, 1882, and then gave a deed of trust on the same to secure a part of the purchase price. Some $75 of this debt being unpaid, the trustee sold the property on the twenty-fourth November, 1883, and Mrs. Lance, the wife of Henry D. Lance, became the purchaser. Thereafter she and her husband gave a deed of trust on the same property to secure a note of $300 to the defendant Sievers. The acre is valued at from three to six hundred dollars. The plaintiffs by their petition seek to set aside the trustee's deed, and the subsequent deed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Hudson v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1907
    ...the defendant might or might not have made." To the same effect is Chance v. Norris, 143 Mo. l. c. 235, 44 S.W. 1116. In Paddock v. Lance, 94 Mo. 283, 6 S.W. 241, question was under consideration, but in that case the issue was not within the pleadings and was not passed on. So here, respon......
  • Hyde v. Copeland
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • August 27, 1943
    ... ... entitled to claim as an [351 Mo. 586] exemption the sum of $ ... 300.00 under Mo. Rev. St., sec. 1327, (1939). Paddock v ... Lance, 6 S.W. 241, 94 Mo. 283; Stinson v. Call, ... 63 S.W. 729, 163 Mo. 323. The section above referred to and ... the cases cited hold ... ...
  • Hudson v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1907
    ...defendant might or might not have made." To the same effect is Chance v. Morris, 143 Mo., loc. cit. 238, 44 S. W. 1116. In Paddock v. Lance, 94 Mo. 283, 6 S. W. 241, the question was under consideration; but in that case the issue was not within the pleadings and was not passed on. So here,......
  • St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. Howard
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1899
    ...54 Mo. 577; Brown v. Hoffmeister, 71 Mo. 411; State v. Beamer, 73 Mo. 37; State v. Barnett, 96 Mo. 133, 8 S. W. 767; Paddock v. Lance, 94 Mo. 283, 6 S. W. 241; Peake v. Cameron, 102 Mo. 568, 15 S. W. 70; Finke v. Craig, 57 Mo. App. 393; Macke v. Byrd, 131 Mo. 682, 33 S. W. 448; Ratliff v. G......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT