Montgomery v. Landusky
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. That the lot in controversy was confirmed to the children of Russ. 2. That their title as proved was sufficient to maintain the action. 3. That the deed to Andrew Henry, did not operate a bar to the recovery of plaintiff, because it was not a present operation and subsisting title. 8 John.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Washington Circuit Court. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. That the lot in controversy was confirmed to the children of Russ. 2. That their title as proved was sufficient to maintain the action. 3. That the deed to Andrew Henry, did not operate a bar to the recovery of plaintiff, because it was not a present operation and subsisting title. 8 John. R. 375; 6 Peters’ Rep. 312. 4. That a trespasser in the condition of defendant, cannot protect himself by shewing an outstanding title in a stranger, superior to plaintiff’s. 4 John. Rep. 202; 1 Tenn. Rep. 515. 5. If Henry had title at any…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was an action of ejectment brought by Montgomery and wife, against Landusky, in the circuit court of Washington county. The following facts were agreed upon on the trial:
James Montgomery, plaintiff, was married on the 3d January, 1827', to Celeste Russ, a lawful heir of Thomas Russ, deceased. Thomas Russ died in the year 1809. On the 24th September, 1842, John Russ, a lawful heir of Thomas Russ, deceased, by deed of bargain and sale, duly made, executed and delivered, for a valuable consideration, conveyed his right and interest in the lot of ground in the declaration mentioned, to the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Dunklin County v. McKaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
- Sweitzer v. Allen Banking Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Exchange Bank v. RobinsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- German-American Bank v. ManningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Harvey v. RuschSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.