Brown v. Barrett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. ¥m. T. Wood} Judge Before the contract between appellants and Ed. J. Brown had been executed, and while -the title to the land in controversy was still in appellants, the defendant Barrett became their vendee, instead of Brown. By his trade with Brown, he took his place in the contract with the appellants — became the holder of the forged note, and undertook to pay all the purchase money for the land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Circuit Court. — Hon. ¥m. T. Wood} Judge Before the contract between appellants and Ed. J. Brown had been executed, and while -the title to the land in controversy was still in appellants, the defendant Barrett became their vendee, instead of Brown. By his trade with Brown, he took his place in the contract with the appellants — became the holder of the forged note, and undertook to pay all the purchase money for the land. It is well settled that a payment iu forged or counterfeit notes is no payment at all; therefore, the delivery of the note and deed of trust for $5,000,…
1Opinion of the CourtHenry, J.
In September, 1870, plaintiffs sold to E. J. Brown a tract of land in Pettis county for $13,390, which was to be paid as follows : $1,000 in sheep, $7,390 in cash, and the balance, $5,000, in a note purporting to have been executed by Henry J. Smith and secured by a deed of trust on 1,280 acres of land in Olay county, Iowa. There was a written contract between the parties embodying the terms of the agreement. The sheep were delivered, and it was agreed between the vendors and the vendee that the *277vendors should execute a deed to the vendee for the Pettis county land, and leave it with Barrett…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Durette v. BriggsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Adams v. BuchananSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Carr v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
- Sullivan v. FergusonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Anderson v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877