Smith v. Washington

Citation88 Mo. 475
PartiesSMITH, Plaintiff in Error, v. WASHINGTON.
Decision Date31 October 1885
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Error to St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Henry H. Denison for plaintiff in error.Glover & Shepley, J. B. Henderson and J. S. Dobyns for defendant in error.

SHERWOOD, J.

The defendant and others claimed to have inherited certain lands from H., their deceased father. These lands were held adversely. Defendant agrees with attorney, D., that if he will sue for these lands, he shall receive as compensation one-half of what is recovered, delivering to him at the same time, a quitclaim deed for one-half of her interest in these lands. D. does not record his deed nor sue for these lands, though it seems he does render some sort of service in the matter, the nature of which does not appear. But W. and her co-heirs do institute suit and prosecute the same with such success that in four years time the heirs of L., who are in possession of the lands, are willing to compromise. Whereupon a compromise is effected, whereby the heirs of H., including W., quit-claim certain blocks in the subdivision of the property, and leave them in quiet possession of those, while the heirs of L. likewise quit-claim other blocks to the heirs of H., including W., and put them in quiet possession. These deeds are duly put to record, imparting notice to all, and the process of interchange of deeds goes on for a year or two. D., meanwhile, does nothing, and seven years and a half after the agreement with W., already recited, and three years and a half after the recording of the first deed of the heirs of L. to W., he, for a consideration of one hundred dollars, quit-claims to the plaintiff any interest he may have obtained by reason of the quit-claim deed of W. The deed thus obtained as well as the one from W. to D., are at once put to record, and this suit is brought by plaintiff, and he claims that in consequence of the foregoing facts that he is entitled to one-half of any interest W. may have in the specific lots conveyed to her, and the other heirs of H. by the heirs of L., which lots, with other portions of the tract, W., at the time of her quit-claim deed to D., claimed, together with the other heirs of her father. The circuit court, on a general demurrer, held the above statements of the petition insufficient, and this ruling was affirmed by the St. Louis court of appeals. Nothing can be clearer than the correctness of this ruling.

I. The laches of Darby and his failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Reasor v. Marshall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Mayo 1949
    ...... will convey only that title then owned by the grantor. Butcher v. Rogers, 60 Mo. 138; Smith v. Washington, 88 Mo. 475; Gibson v. Chouteau, 39. Mo. 536; Bogy v. Shoab, 13 Mo. 365. (5) A quitclaim. deed which is ineffectual to pass ......
  • Phillips v. Jackson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 29 Febrero 1912
    ...... consent of all the parties in interest. 1 Perry on Trusts (3. Ed.), sec. 104; Newton v. Rebeneck, 90 Mo.App. 657;. Smith v. Smith, 70 Mo.App. 451; Ewing v. Warner, 47 Minn. 446; Ewing v. Shannahan, 113. Mo. 196. (4) The deed of trust for $ 6700 was by its very. ... to be guilty of negligence and sleeping on his rights. Perry v. Craig, 3 Mo. 516; Miller v. Bernecker, 46 Mo. 194; Smith v. Washington, 11. Mo.App. 519; Ibid., 88 Mo. 475. In this case the defendants. were in possession of the premises under a deed of trust. requiring them to ......
  • Reasor v. Marshall, 40809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 9 Mayo 1949
    ...held by the trial court to be, will convey only that title then owned by the grantor. Butcher v. Rogers, 60 Mo. 138; Smith v. Washington, 88 Mo. 475; Gibson v. Chouteau, 39 Mo. 536; Bogy v. Shoab, 13 Mo. 365. (5) A quitclaim deed which is ineffectual to pass title because at the time of the......
  • Robertson v. Vandalia Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 Enero 1934
    ...or estoppel may be interposed against a claim that a contract is invalid in a suit at law. Shields v. McClure, 75 Mo.App. 631; Smith v. Washington, 88 Mo. 475. (6) Where have reduced their contract to writing it will be conclusively presumed, in the absence of fraud, accident or mistake, th......
  • 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