Morriso v. Philliber
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. cited the following authorities: 12 Mo. 157; 14 Mo. 580 ; 17 Mo. 209, 228; 19 Mo. 423 ; 23 Mo. 188, 579 ; 24 Mo. 167 ; 19 Ves. 131; 11 Wheat. 125; 2 Sto.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. cited the following authorities: 12 Mo. 157; 14 Mo. 580 ; 17 Mo. 209, 228; 19 Mo. 423 ; 23 Mo. 188, 579 ; 24 Mo. 167 ; 19 Ves. 131; 11 Wheat. 125; 2 Sto. Eq. § 697 r 3 Ves. 368; 11 Ves. 535 ; 2 Jac. & Walk. 391; Story on Ag. 14. I. The inadequacy of consideration is such in this case as to shock the moral sense of any man, and amount in itself to conclusive and decisive evidence of fraud. (Sto. Eq. § 246 5 9 Ves. 246; 10 Ves. 219; 2 Madd. Ch. 556; Jacob, 280; 16 Ves. 512; 1 Brown’s Ch. 9; 2 Johns. Ch.…
1Opinion of the CourtEwing, Judge
The defendant in error, Julie Morriso, filed her bill to set aside a deed, executed by her to Philliber for certain real estate in the city of St. Louis, which she alleges was procured by fraud. There was a decree accordingly, and the title to the property vested in the plaintiff. The defendant filed his motion for a new trial, which being overruled, he brings the cause to this court by writ of error. The cause was tried under the practice act of 1849, and there was a finding of facts by the court. And the question for our consideration is, whether the facts as found were warranted by the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Drake v. GreenerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1975
- Binnion v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- State v. SparrowMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
- Frei v. VogelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Mangold v. BaconSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911