Whiting v. Enterprise Land & Sheep Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 17353.,17353. |
| Citation | Whiting v. Enterprise Land & Sheep Co., 265 Mo. 374, 177 S.W. 589 (Mo. 1915) |
| Parties | WHITING v. ENTERPRISE LAND & SHEEP CO. et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shannon County; W. N. Evans, Judge.
Action by Henry W. Whiting against the Enterprise Land & Sheep Company and others.From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal.Reversed and remanded.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to specifically enforce the following agreement:
The petitioner alleges the legal effect of the above contract, and also: That the defendantI. C. Van Noy delivered to him the 57,700 shares of stock, and that be is the owner thereof; that no transfer has been made on the books of the defendant company; that the abstract of title to the lands referred to in said agreement has been delivered to plaintiff, who, after examining the same, was ready within 30 days to close the trade, provided the title was a reasonably salable one, or could be made good in a reasonable time and at a reasonable expense.That plaintiff notified the said I. C. Van Noy that he was ready to carry out his contract upon compliance therewith by tie latter.That the lands referred to in the contract had been previously owned by one Goettel, a citizen of Pennsylvania, who had executed a deed to the defendant corporation and placed it in escrow to be delivered on the payment of $17,000, which payment was made on October 17, 1911, and the deed was recorded on October 31, 1911, in the counties of Carter, Reynolds, and Wayne, where the said land was situated.That thereafter the vendee, the defendant company, made a conveyance without authority of its board of directors of said land to H. C. Koehler, to secure him a sum of money not exceeding $17,000.That said deed could only operate, if at all, as an equitable mortgage to secure the money loaned thereon by said Koehler.
The petition prays: That this (Pied be annulled or treated as an equitable mortgage.That defendantVan Noy be required to specifically perform his contract, or to cause the transfer of the shares of stock to be made to plaintiff on the books of the defendant company.That Koehler be restrained from disposing of the land deeded to him by the defendant corporation, and for general relief.
The defendant's answer admitted the incorporation of one of the defendants and the execution of the contract exhibited with the Petition, and that the lands conveyed to the corporate defendant were theretofore owned by one Goettel, and that his deed and that placed in escrow had been since delivered and recorded together with the deed of trust given by the defendant corporation to secure the unpaid purchase money for said land, admitting that thereafter said defendant corporation conveyed the land to said Koehler, and that no meeting of its board of directors authorized that conveyance.
The answer denied the remaining allegations of the petition and averred plaintiff's remedy was at law.The reply took issue.
On the trial defendant Koehler filed a disclaimer of any cause.
The court rendered a decree, to wit:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Scott v. Luehrmann
... ... 205; Young v. Farwell, 139 Ill. 326; Martin ... v. Southern Salena Land Co., 94 Va. 28; Brundage v ... Monumental Co., 12 Ore. 322. (8) A ... pleadings of the parties. [Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo ... 382; Whiting v. Land & Sheep Co., 265 Mo. 374, 177 ... S.W. 589 et cases cited.] In ... ...
-
McCullough v. Newton
...state also the conclusion of inadequacy. There is nothing in the cited cases of Farrington v. Hays, supra, or Whiting v. Enterprise Land & Sheep Co., 265 Mo. 374, 177 S.W. 589, really to the contrary. Whiting, only holds, in essence, that the facts pleaded must justify the relief granted; i......
-
State ex rel. Teare v. Dungan
... ... defendant's land from that appearing first on the ... assessor's book, and without notice ... ...
-
Thompson v. Terminal Shares, 279.
...property of this character may be one for the enforcement of which an action for specific performance will lie. Whiting v. Land & Sheep Co., 265 Mo. 374, 177 S.W. 589. But it is very doubtful whether the contracts here are so enforceable. I find it unnecessary to discuss the The prime quest......
-
Section 4.32 Personal Property Contracts
...bear to the control of the corporation. See: · Powell v. Kennedy, 463 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. banc 1971) · Whiting v. Enter. Land & Sheep Co., 177 S.W. 589 (Mo. 1915) · Wood v. Kansas City Home Tel. Co., 123 S.W. 6 (Mo. 1909) (stock was unavailable for purchase in the open market) · Baumhoff v. St.......