Martin v. Colburn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. —IIon. Noah M. Gtyan, Judge. (1) The deed bv which Mrs. Martin acquired title «reates in her’ a pure, legal estate ; and it is not competent, under the x>ecnliar facts disclosed in this case, to ■assail or change the title with which she is invested. This could only be done by charging fraud or mistake in the execution of the deed to her, which is not pretended.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cass Circuit Court. —IIon. Noah M. Gtyan, Judge. (1) The deed bv which Mrs. Martin acquired title «reates in her’ a pure, legal estate ; and it is not competent, under the x>ecnliar facts disclosed in this case, to ■assail or change the title with which she is invested. This could only be done by charging fraud or mistake in the execution of the deed to her, which is not pretended. Parol and other evidence designed and tending to show that she might have been invested with a separate estate was, therefore, not competent, and it was error to admit it. Tisson v. Ins. Co., 40 Mo. 33;…
1Dissent
Black, J.,
Dissenting. — I dissent from the proposition that a deed of a married woman conveying her separate estate is of no validity unless the husband is a. party thereto. The powers of a married woman over her. separate estate are, it would seem, in some of the states limited to the express terms of the instrument creating the estate. The very reverse is the English, as well as the rule of this state. 1 Lead. Cas. Eq. 405. The majority opinion quotes from Story’s Eq. sec. 1392. I understand the author there to speak of an exceptional case, i. <?., where the separate property is given to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Whitesides v. CannonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Green v. SuttonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Kimm v. WeippertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- McQuie v. PeaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- King v. MittalbergerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.