Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Tillery
Decision Date | 28 November 1899 |
Citation | 54 S.W. 220,152 Mo. 421 |
Parties | UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. v. TILLERY. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Moniteau county; D. W. Shackleford, Judge.
Injunction by the Union Central Life Insurance Company against James Tillery. From an order dissolving a temporary injunction and dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
This is an action for injunctive relief, the object being to restrain the removal by defendant of a dwelling house, stable, shed, and corncrib from a certain tract of land in Moniteau county, of which plaintiff was the owner. A temporary injunction was granted by the judge of the circuit court of that county, but which was, after answer filed by defendant, in which he alleged that he had the right to remove the buildings under his contract with Burke, under whom he held possession, was dissolved, and the petition dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.
Moore & Williams, for appellant. Wood & Wood, for respondent.
Plaintiff acquired title to the land upon which the buildings were situated under the foreclosure sale of a deed of trust executed on the 15th day of September, 1892, by one Edmund Burke and wife, upon that and other lands, and by a quitclaim deed from said Burke to it, executed on the 15th day of January, 1896, the same day upon which the sheriff who sold the land to plaintiff under the foreclosure sale executed to plaintiff a deed for the land under that sale. The quitclaim deed from Burke to plaintiff contains the following: "And the said Edmund Burke hereby promises and agrees to deliver full and absolute possession of all the above-described real estate on the first day of March, 1896, to the party of the second part." On December 8, 1894, defendant was a tenant of Edmund Burke, and in the occupancy of the land upon which the buildings in question were erected, and on that day entered into a written contract with him, by the terms of which he was to erect the buildings in question thereon, and to have the privilege of removing the same from the land under the terms and conditions of the contract. The contract provides as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Halvorson, 38611.
......Hansell, 294 Mo. 195, 243 S.W. 131; Mackson v. Ins. Co., 115 S.W. (2d) 217; Pearce v. Rogers, 15 S.W. (2d) ...12, 14[5, 6]; Ann. Cas. 1916D, 740; Wisconsin Cent. Rd. Co. v. United States, 164 U.S. 190, 210, 41 L. Ed. ......
-
Kelvinator St. Louis v. Schader
......Co. v. Stevens, 9 S.W.2d 808; Union Central Life Insurance. Co. v. Tillery, 152 Mo. 421, 54 ... of six per cent., from date of mortgage to due date and a. larger rate ......
-
Kansas City v. Halvorson
......Hansell, 294 Mo. 195, 243 S.W. 131;. Mackson v. Ins. Co., 115 S.W.2d 217; Pearce v. Rogers, 15 S.W.2d 874; ...12, 14[5, 6]; Ann. Cas. 1916D, 740; Wisconsin Cent. Rd. Co. v. United. States, 164 U.S. 190, 210, 41 L.Ed. ......
-
Kelvinator St. Louis, Inc., v. Schader
...Carroll, 72 Mo. App. 315; Thomas v. Davis, 76 Mo. 72; Security Stove & Mfg. Co. v. Stevens, 9 S.W. (2d) 808; Union Central Life Insurance Co. v. Tillery, 152 Mo. 421, 54 S.W. 220. (4) Appellant is not chargeable with actual or constructive notice of any agreement contained in the chattel mo......