Foster v. Brost
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Montgomery District Court. Action by Foster, to establish a trust, and compel trustees -to convey title. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. A demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition was sustained, at the .August Term 1872 of the district court, and plaintiff brings the case here. 1. The prevention of litigation is a valid and sufficient consideration, and the law favors the settlement of disputes.
Read the full summary
Error from Montgomery District Court. Action by Foster, to establish a trust, and compel trustees -to convey title. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. A demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition was sustained, at the .August Term 1872 of the district court, and plaintiff brings the case here. 1. The prevention of litigation is a valid and sufficient consideration, and the law favors the settlement of disputes. It is said that the compromise of a pending litigation is a favored consideration. 1 Pars, on Contr., 438. 2. The facts stated in the petition disclose a case of actual fraud on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
The petition in the court below shows that the plaintiff Hiram Foster, in February 1871, settled upon and afterward occupied and improved ascertain eighty-acre tract of land situated in the Osage diminished reserve, with the intention of purchasing it from the government of the United States; that afterward one John Brost, one of the defendants in this action, also claimed the right' to purchase said land, and instituted a contest therefor in the proper land-office, which contest was to be heard on the 29th of October 1871; that prior to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brake v. BallouSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- United States v. EdwardsUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
- Ware v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902