Moore v. McCullough
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from Cooper Circuit Court. 1. In order to entitle the complainant to a decree against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract for the lot in question, it devolves upon him to show that he has fully paid for the lot, as slated in his original bill of complaint; or that he has fully satisfied the plaintiff therefor, under the alleged agreement and settlement of accounts, as set forth, in his said amended bill of complaint.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Cooper Circuit Court. 1. In order to entitle the complainant to a decree against the defendants for a specific performance of the contract for the lot in question, it devolves upon him to show that he has fully paid for the lot, as slated in his original bill of complaint; or that he has fully satisfied the plaintiff therefor, under the alleged agreement and settlement of accounts, as set forth, in his said amended bill of complaint. By the evidence in the cause, he has not sustained the allegations in either bill. 2. A decree for a specific performance of a contract is a matter…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, J.
This was a bill in chancery to compel the conveyance of a lot of ground in Boonville, The bill, answers and replications, are not materially different from what they were in 1840, (see 6 Mo. Rep, 445,) and I shall therefore refer to that opinion for the statement of the issues involved. The only issue, as I then thought, presented by the bill and answers was, whether the settlement between the defendants and Huston and McCullough was final, and embraced the whole amount of the bill of items furnished, or was only partial and conditional, to be subject to a subsequent re-adjustment of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Kronenberger v. BinzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- State ex rel. Scotland County v. EwingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- McKeen v. Boatmen's BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Denver Brick Manufacturing Co. v. McAllisterSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Marmon v. WallerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893