Wright v. Lewis

13 Citing cases

  1. Adams v. Smith

    232 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. 1950)   Cited 8 times

    His only right is to set against the purchase price the money expended in acquiring the outstanding title. Wright v. Lewis, 19 S.W.2d 287; McFarland v. Cobb, 64 S.W.2d 931; 55 Am. Jur., sec. 381, p. 805; Annotation 40 A.L.R. 1078. (2) The rule which precludes the vendee in a contract for the sale of land from acquiring for his own benefit a title adverse to his vendor applies, whether title is based upon a sale for taxes assessed before or after he went into possession. 55 Am. Jur., sec. 383, p. 807. (3) John P. Lange and Shilah Lange, husband and wife, acquired title by the entirety to the land here involved by warranty deed, dated March 12, 1921.

  2. Lewis v. Gray

    201 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. 1947)   Cited 2 times
    In Lewis v. Gray, 356 Mo. 115, 201 S.W.2d 148 (1947), this court held that absent a valid and enforceable restriction to the contrary in a contract for the sale of land, a purchaser's interest therein pursuant to such contract can be mortgaged.

    (1) The court committed error prejudicial to appellant Gray in holding that defendant Bell under his executory contract to purchase the lands in controversy acquired "an equitable interest" in said lands which he could sell or mortgage. Wright v. Lewis, 19 S.W.2d 287, 323 Mo. 404; Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 20 S.W.2d 899, 323 Mo. 776; Standard Leather v. Insurance Co., 131 Mo. App. 710, 111 S.W. 631; Waugh v. Williams, 119 S.W.2d 223, 342 Mo. 903. (2) The court committed error prejudicial to appellant Gray in holding that the deed of trust from defendant Bell to plaintiff Lewis, when recorded, was notice to the world of the interest of Lewis in the lands in controversy. Odle v. Odle, 73 Mo. 289; Ford v. Unity Church Society, 120 Mo. 498, 25 S.W. 394, 23 L.R.A. 561, with annotations, 41 Am. St. Rep. 711; Ellsberry v. Duval-Percival Trust Co., 282 S.W. 1054; 2 Robert T. Devlin, "The Law of Real Property and Deeds," sec. 724; Richardson v. Atlantic Coast Lbr. Co., 93 S.C. 254, 75 S.E. 371, L.R.A. 1918 C, p. 788, with annotations; Bright v. Buckman, 39 F. 243; Heffron v. Flanigan, 37 Mich. 274; Wheeler v. Young, 76 Conn. 44, 55 A. 670; Breen v. Morehead, 104 Tex. 254, 186 S.W. 1947, Ann. Cas. 1914 A, p. 1285, with annotation; Bingham v. Kirkland, 34 N.J.

  3. Johnson v. Fotie

    308 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. 1958)   Cited 11 times

    The refusal of the trial court to hold that plaintiffs were entitled to all the proceeds of these policies certainly was not plain error which would authorize this court, in its discretion, to consider this contention on appeal. Supreme Court Rule 3.27, 42 V.A.M.S. Therefore, in the absence of a point in the brief, the contention is not before this court for review. Supreme Court Rule 1.08; Scott v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, 333 Mo. 374, 62 S.W.2d 834; Wallace v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 165 S.W.2d 408; Wright v. Lewis, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 287. Plaintiffs base their claim to an amount equal to the cash surrender value of the three policies on the obiter dictum statement in Industrial Loan Investment Co. v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 222 Mo.App. 1228, 3 S.W.2d 1046, to the effect that when an insurance policy is attached by a creditor of the insured, the policy should be placed in the hands of a receiver as provided by Section 521.340 RS Mo 1949, V.A.M.S., and that the receiver should collect the amount due on the policy at the proper time and in the manner provided by the policy, as he would a note or other obligation.

  4. Bogad v. Wachter

    283 S.W.2d 609 (Mo. 1955)   Cited 15 times
    In Bogad v. Wachter, 365 Mo. 426, 283 S.W.2d 609, 614 (1955), the court subscribed to the principle that "`if time is of the essence but has been waived it is necessary that the vendor give the vendee notice of his intention to forfeit the contract before the vendee may be deprived of equitable relief against the forfeiture.'"

    Rayburn v. Atkinson, 206 S.W.2d 512; Branch v. Lee, 159 S.W.2d 677; Rogers v. Gruber, 351 Mo. 1033, 174 S.W.2d 830; Annotations, 107 A.L.R. 345, 347, et seq; Parkhurst v. Lebanon Publishing Co., 356 Mo. 934, 204 S.W.2d 241; Chapman v. Breeze, 355 Mo. 873, 198 S.W.2d 717; Kyner v. Bryant, 353 Mo. 1212, 187 S.W.2d 202. (2) The court erred in not finding and decreeing that the defendants had wrongfully, by their actions, caused the plaintiffs to invest in the trailer camp here involved and to make improvements thereon and in not doing full and complete equity by requiring in this action refund to plaintiffs of the amount invested by them in payments on account of the contract and in making improvements upon the property. Waugh v. Williams, 119 S.W.2d 223; Wright v. Lewis, 19 S.W.2d 287; Rockhill Tennis Club v. Volker, 331 Mo. 947, 56 S.W.2d 9. Robert M. Zeppenfeld and Breuer Northern for respondents.

  5. Hernandez v. Prieto

    162 S.W.2d 829 (Mo. 1942)   Cited 24 times

    (a) The mere signing of a contract to purchase does not create an equitable title in the purchaser. 66 C.J., 702-704, Sec. 262; Lambert v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 212 Mo. 692, 111 S.W. 550; Beckmann v. Beckmann, 58 S.W.2d 490; Waugh v. Williams, 342 Mo. 903, 119 S.W.2d 223; Wright v. Lewis, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 287; Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. Arky, 323 Mo. 776, 20 S.W.2d 899. (b) If, by placing plaintiff's name in the contract of purchase, defendant is held to have intended to make a gift to plaintiff of an interest in the property, such "gift" was never fully consummated by defendant and was never accepted by plaintiff, hence was revocable by defendant. 28 C.J., 629, Sec. 20; 28 C.J., 643-644, Sec. 37. (c) Equity will not lend its aid to perfect an unperfected gift, by a declaration of trust, unless the equities are with the alleged donee.

  6. James H. Forbes Tea & Coffee Co. v. Baltimore Bank

    345 Mo. 1151 (Mo. 1940)   Cited 12 times

    A check may be the subject of conversion. K.C. Casualty Co. v. Bank, 191 Mo. App. 287, 177 S.W. 1092; Good Roads, Machinery Co. v. Bank, 267 S.W. 40; Landau Groc. Co. v. Bank, 223 Mo. App. 1181, 26 S.W.2d 794; Pierce v. Bank, 13 F.2d 40; Anderson v. Bank, 201 Mo. App. 400, 212 S.W. 60; Universal Carloading Distributing Co. v. Bank, 224 Mo. App. 876, 27 S.W.2d 768; Jackson v. Natl. Bank, 20 S.W.2d 802; Austin Good Roads Machinery Co. v. Bank, 255 S.W. 585; Mead v. Southside Bank, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 664; Shafer Bros. v. Powell Mfg. Co., 52 S.W.2d 457; Oklahoma State Bank v. Galion Iron Works Mfg. Co., 4 F.2d 337; N.Y. Indemnity Co. v. Bank, 227 Mo. App. 878, 59 S.W.2d 741; N.W. Savs. Bank v. International Bank, 90 Mo. App. 205; Strong v. Trust Co., 263 S.W. 1038. (d) Power of agent to collect accounts for his principal does not give the agent authority to endorse principal's name to negotiable instruments. Good Roads Machinery Co. v. Bank, 267 S.W. 40; Kansas City Cas. Co. v. Bank, 191 Mo. App. 287, 177 S.W. 1092; Landau Groc. Co. v. Bank, 223 Mo. App. 118, 26 S.W.2d 794; Graham v. U.S. Savings Institute, 46 Mo. 186; 4 C.J., 256; 2 C.J.S., pp. 1191, 1221, 1300-1303; Oklahoma State Bank v. Iron Works, 4 F.2d 337; Jackson v. Bank, 18 L.R.A. 663; 7 C.J., 644; Brannon's Negotiable Instrument Law (4 Ed.), pp. 183, 195; Guaranty Trust Co. v. Bank, 183 A.D. 586; Pluto Co. v. Bank, 141 N.W. 220; Gene v. Bank, 77 N.W. 650; Strong v. Bank, 263 S.W. 1038; Quigley v. Mexico Savs. Bank, 80 Mo. 28

  7. Waugh v. Williams

    342 Mo. 903 (Mo. 1938)   Cited 46 times

    Appellant contends that because respondents brought the two ejectment suits, he relied upon the fact that they were trying to rescind the contract and, consequently, let the property in question be foreclosed. If the record sustained such contention, then we would be inclined to agree with appellant, but the evidence does not sustain this conclusion. It is true appellant testified that he offered to surrender the property to respondents on condition that he be reimbursed for what he had paid to respondents, to the insurance company, for taxes, and for improvements that he had placed upon the property. If appellant had offered to rescind the contract he could not have done so on such terms. He would have had to account to respondents for fair rental value of the property for the time he had possession. [Wright v. Lewis, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 287.] He also testified that he resisted the two ejectment suits and that he was anxious to pay all he had promised to pay on the property. While the second ejectment suit was pending appellant paid respondents $150 on March 16, 1934, and $100 on April 26, 1934. If he were relying on the fact that respondents were trying to rescind the contract, why did he still make payments under the contract?

  8. Pulitzer v. Chapman

    337 Mo. 298 (Mo. 1935)   Cited 100 times
    In Pulitzer v. Chapman, 337 Mo. 298, 85 S.W.2d 400 (1935), this Court followed the weight of existing authority in holding that extrajudicial statements not made by a party to the suit were hearsay and not admissible.

    (1) Upon appeal this court will not consider for appellants matters not specifically assigned by them as error. Bachman v. Railroad Co., 310 Mo. 48, 274 S.W. 764; Gottschalk v. Wells, 274 S.W. 399; Wright v. Lewis, 19 S.W.2d 287; Pfotenhauer v. Ridgway, 307 Mo. 529, 271 S.W. 50. (2) Since the will was contested upon two grounds — testamentary incapacity and undue influence — and since the appellants offered at the close of the entire case a general demurrer only, and thereafter requested and received instructions on both issues, they may not urge upon appeal as error the submission of the case to the jury upon either or both issues.

  9. Keyes v. C.B. Q. Railroad Co.

    326 Mo. 236 (Mo. 1930)   Cited 65 times
    In Keyes v. C.B. Q. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 31 S.W.2d 50, a verdict of $10,000 was upheld for a common laborer sixty-four years old, earning $90 per month, and whose injury was a skull fracture which does not appear to have been as serious as plaintiff's here.

    The matter was waived by not being made a ground of appellant's motion for a new trial. Wright v. Lewis, 19 S.W.2d 287. (4) Since plaintiff had taken a nonsuit as to defendants Briscoe and Murphy, there was no occasion for the jury to make any finding as to these defendants. And the judgment did dispose of all of the parties and all of the issues in the case.

  10. Congregation B'Nai Abraham v. Arky

    323 Mo. 776 (Mo. 1929)   Cited 24 times

    Plaintiff has no enforcible equity in the undivided one-fourth interest in the real estate to which defendant Arky now has the legal title, unless and until it pays or tenders, to him the balance of the purchase money. [Wright v. Lewis, 323 Mo. 404, 19 S.W.2d 287.] The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that court to enter judgment in accordance with the views herein expressed, on the facts heretofore found by it.