Booher v. Allen
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — lion. A. M. Woodson, Judge. (1) Even if the deed, of trust was legally void for want of delivery, it was intended by the parties to be a mortgage, or lien on the land, and it was an equitable mortgage, and appellant bought it as such, and his rights against Ensor, or against these plaintiffs who claim Ensor’s title, are the same in equity that they would be if the mortgage was legally perfect.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — lion. A. M. Woodson, Judge. (1) Even if the deed, of trust was legally void for want of delivery, it was intended by the parties to be a mortgage, or lien on the land, and it was an equitable mortgage, and appellant bought it as such, and his rights against Ensor, or against these plaintiffs who claim Ensor’s title, are the same in equity that they would be if the mortgage was legally perfect. Martin v. Nixon, 92 Mo. 26. (2) The quit claim deed of Heren to Witten at Ensor’s request, conveyed Ensor’s interest in the land only, leaving it subject to any…
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, J.
This is a proceeding in equity to set aside certain deeds and a deed of trust upon land in Andrew county, on the ground that they are frauds.
Stated in the order of their occurrence the facts are as follows:
On the 26th of May, 1891, Lydia L. Baker owned three hundred and ninety acres of land. She was an old lady and ■had two children, Mary E. Martin and Martha A. Baker. *617William Heren and Thomas H. Ensor, partners, were her attorneys, as they were also the attorneys of her daughter Martha. Thomas H. Ensor and William B. Allen, the defendant, were partners in the business of abstractors of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chappell v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Gullett v. Hoy & OrtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Julian v. CalkinsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Kellogg v. SchnaakeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Turner v. HoyleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Whitecotton v. St. Louis & Hannibal Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- Lambert v. Big Medicine Drainage District No. 1Missouri Court of Appeals · 1924