Pratt v. Clark
| Decision Date | 31 July 1874 |
| Citation | 57 Mo. 189 |
| Parties | W. B. PRATT, Plaintiff in Error, v. CAROLINE A. CLARK, et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cole Circuit Court.
Edwards & Son, for Plaintiff in Error, cited in argument: Skinner vs. Purnell, (52 Mo., 96).
Lay & Belch, for Defendants in Error.
The plaintiff alleged in substance these facts in his petition: that in the year 1870, Henry Eaton and Caroline A. Clark owned lot No. 110 in the city of Jefferson, the legal title to which was in said Caroline A., and was subject to an incumbrance of $1,000, created by a deed of trust executed by the defendant, Mrs. Clark and her husband, since deceased, John Clark, to Henry Eaton as trustee; that plaintiff was at that time the owner of a certain tract known as Pratt's Mills, containing about eleven acres; that plaintiff and Henry Eaton, John Clark and Caroline A. Clark then entered into a parol agreement, whereby plaintiff agreed to convey to Eaton and Mrs. Clark the Mill tract free from incumbrance, in exchange for the property of Mrs. Clark; that the immediate removal of the incumbrance upon the exchange of titles, was the express agreement of the parties, and was to be received in part payment of the real estate then owned by the plaintiff; that plaintiff fully complied with the contract on his part and made to Eaton and Mrs. Clark a conveyance of the Mill tract, but they, although they conveyed to him lot No. 110 by a deed of general warranty, did not and would not remove or cause to be removed the incumbrance on the property conveyed to plaintiff; that plaintiff would not have accepted such conveyance, but upon the express understanding and agreement that such incumbrance should be removed; that defendants were insolvent except as to the property conveyed to them; that they openly avow their determination not to remove the incumbrance, but to leave it as it is; that the defendants had been attempting to sell the Mill tract with the avowed intention of thereby depriving the plaintiff of any lien which he might have on the property which he had conveyed to them, and that the note for $1,000 secured by the deed of trust had long since fallen due and remained unpaid.
The petition concluded with a prayer that the debt secured by the deed of trust might, with the interest accrued and to accrue, be declared a lien on the property conveyed by plaintiff to Henry Eaton and Mrs. Clark, until such time as they should comply with their contract and remove the aforesaid incumbrance, and also asks for general relief.
The defendants demurred, and the court held the petition insufficient. The correctness of that ruling will now be examined.
The doctrine of the lien of a vendor of real estate for the unpaid purchase money is a familiar one. This lien like that of a vendee, who prematurely pays the purchase money before the reception of a conveyance of the land he has purchased, is treated as a constructive or implied trust and as raised by implication, and not, therefore, within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. Hanssen, 32208.
...equity jurisdiction the court will entertain it even though there may be a remedy at law. [Stewart v. Caldwell, 54 Mo. 536; Pratt v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Real Estate Sav. Inst. v. Collonious, 63 Mo. 290; Story's Eq. Juris., sec. 80.] And the fact that a plaintiff may have a remedy by suit at ......
-
Heady v. Crouse
...conferred jurisdiction exclusive, either expressly or by necessary implication. Banks v. Chambers, 96 Mo. 459, 10 S. W. 38, citing Pratt v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Stewart v. Caldwell, 54 Mo. 536. See, also, State v. County Court, 38 Mo. 402. And in Hamer v. Cook, supra, it is directly held that......
-
Morris v. Hanssen
... ... 306; ... Yeaman v. James, 27 Kan. 195; Matthew v ... Robinson, 7 Kan.App. 118; Brennan v. Coakley, ... 243 Mass. 348; Brooks v. Pratt, 118 F. 725, 55 ... C.C.A. 515. (a) Concealment of an existing fact by Yeoman ... amounts to a fraud the same as a misrepresentation of a fact ... the court will entertain it even though there may be a remedy ... at law. [ Stewart v. Caldwell, 54 Mo. 536; Pratt ... v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Real Estate Sav. Inst. v ... Collonious, 63 Mo. 290; Story's Eq. Juris., sec ... 80.] And the fact that a plaintiff may have a ... ...
-
Johnson v. Burks
...preclude the equitable relief. The right to enforce the vendor's lien may exist contemporaneously with a right to recover at law. Pratt v. Clark, 57 Mo. 189; Bishop v. Seal, 87 Mo.App. 256. (3) If the title is defective or the property is incumbered, the vendee has a lien. Smilly v. Adams, ......