Skinner v. Purnell

• Decision Date: 28 February 1873
• Parties: SILAS W. SKINNER, Appellant, v. JAMES E. PURNELL and MARY A. PURNELL, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 Mo. 96

SILAS W. SKINNER, Appellant,

v.JAMES E. PURNELL and MARY A. PURNELL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1873.

Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court.

Porter and Turner, for Appellant.

The facts stated in the petition show the existence of a lien against the property sought to be charged. (Wash. on Real Prop., Vol 2, pp. 86, 87, 88; Story Eq. Jur., §§ 1217, 1218, 1219; Delassus vs. Poston, 19 Mo., 428; Marsh vs. Turner, 4 Mo., 253.)

John G. Woods, for Respondent.

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition alleges in substance the execution of a note by defendant J. E. Purnell, in December, 1870, for $300, to plaintiff for a part of the purchase money of certain real estate sold by him to said Purnell, and conveyed by direction of said Purnell to his wife Mary A. Purnell; that at the time said property was conveyed, defendant J. E. Purnell made false and fraudulent representations as to his ownership of certain other real estate in Kansas City, and that his title thereto was perfect and the property free from incumbrance; that by reason thereof plaintiff was induced to convey the property, sold by him to defendant said J. E. Purnell to his wife Mary A. Purnell, and to accept as security for said notes a deed of trust on said property in Kansas City; that said Purnell did not own said property or any interest therein, which he, Purnell knew; that he was persuaded not to examine the records as to the title to said property by reason of the assurances and repreentations of said defendant in regard to the title and condition of the property, and that he was plaintiff's legal adviser at the ime the transaction took place. Defendant Mary A. Purnell demurred to the petition on the following grounds:

1. Several causes of action are improperly united in the same count, with a single prayer asking both legal and equitable relief.

2. The petition alleges that the defendant is a married woman, and is brought to recover a judgment against her husband, and at the same time seeks to bind her property for the paymet of the debt.

3. That the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against this defendant.

4. The petition seeks to charge her property on the ground of fraud in the original contract, but does not charge that she was a party to or in any manner connected with the fraudulent contract.

The demurrer was sustained. The record discloses some irregularities in reference to a non-suit after the demurrer had been sustained; but the ruling of the court upon the demurrer only will be considered.

Even if it be...