Reed v. Bott
Decision Date | 18 November 1889 |
Citation | 12 S.W. 347,100 Mo. 62 |
Parties | REED v. BOTT et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Scotland county; BEN E. TURNER, Judge.
Berkheimer & Givens, for appellants. John A. Whiteside and Frank Hagerman, for respondent.
This is a suit in equity against John A. Bott and his wife, Mary E., to have a deed for 73 acres of land to her declared fraudulent, and to vest the title in the plaintiff. The plaintiff purchased the property in 1885, under a judgment in favor of Max Yesnor against John A. Bott, rendered in March, 1884, on a note dated in March, 1882. The defendants appealed from a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
The first objection made by defendants is that the proof does not support the cause of action stated in the petition. The petition states that "on ______ day of ______, 1881, defendant John A. Bott purchased of L. K. and Nancy Wilcox the following real estate, [describing it;] that on the ______ day of September, 1884, John A. Bott paid the balance of the purchase price for the land, and, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, instructed Wilcox and wife to execute a deed to Mary E. Bott, the wife of said John A. Bott; that the deed was made to her, the defendant John A. Bott intending thereby to defraud his creditors." The petition goes on to say etc. The proof shows beyond all question that the bond for the title was made by Wilcox and wife to John Bott, who was the father of John A. Bott. John Bott says he made the first payment to Wilcox, namely, $350, and this statement is not controverted. He also executed his note for the deferred payment of $375, and when it became due he paid it, and had the deed made to Mrs. John A. Bott. The first deed to her was made in California, and was defective, if not worthless, and the second was made in correction of the first. Prior to 1881, John A. Bott was engaged in a mercantile business, and in that year his property was damaged by fire. He then compromised with his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stockgrowers' Bank of Wheatland v. Gray
...v. McClain, 148 Ind. 188, 44 N.E. 306; Shirk v. Mitchell, 137 Ind. 185, 36 N.E. 850; Hennessy v. Anstock, 19 Pa. S.Ct. 644; Reed v. Bott et al., (Mo.) 12 S.W. 347; Hasselmann v. Carroll, (Ind.) 26 N.E. 202; v. Anderson (Ga.) 47 S.E. 208; Fox v. Hale &c Co., 108 Cal. 369, 41 P. 308.) Where d......
-
Coleman v. Hagey
...allegation of fraud will not be sufficient, but the facts constituting the fraud must be specifically alleged and shown. Reed v. Bott, 100 Mo. 62, 12 S. W. 347, 14 S. W. 1089; Burnham v. Boyd, 167 Mo. 185, 66 S. W. 1088; Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. S. 228, 6 Sup. Ct. 22, 29 L. Ed. 384; Wood......
-
Branner v. Klaber
...Mo. 32, 152 S.W. 10, 24; Black v. Early, 208 Mo. 281, l.c. 313, 106 S.W. 1014; Schneider v. Patton, 175 Mo. 684, 75 S.W. 155; Reed v. Bott, 100 Mo. 62, 12 S.W. 347, 14 S.W. 1089; 21 C.J. 682, sec. 858; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Northwestern Bank, 315 Mo. 849, 288 S.W. 359; 21 C.J. 688, sec. 861......
-
Bagnell Timber Co. v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co.
... ... Railroad, 88 Mo. 50; Clements ... v. Yeates, 69 Mo. 623; Merle v. Hascall, 10 Mo ... 406; Beck v. Ferrara, 19 Mo. 30; Reed v ... Bott, 100 Mo. 62; Johnson-Brinkmann Co. v ... Bank, 116 Mo. 558. (4) The proceeding for a lien was ... based on an alleged contract by ... ...