Legal Opinion

McMahan v. Hubbard

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 30, 1909PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Ron. F. G. Johnston, Judge. (1) The land being described in the will as in section 33, it was error for the court to admit extrinsic evidence to show that the testator intended to convey land in section 28, other and different land from that described. Even a court of equity cannot reform a will or a gratuitous devise therein upon the ground of mistake.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. — Ron. F. G. Johnston, Judge. (1) The land being described in the will as in section 33, it was error for the court to admit extrinsic evidence to show that the testator intended to convey land in section 28, other and different land from that described. Even a court of equity cannot reform a will or a gratuitous devise therein upon the ground of mistake. It does not stand upon the ground of mistake in executing or making a contract for a valuable consideration. Goode v. Goode, 22 Mo. 518; Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 111. 514; Lomax v. Lomax,' 218 111. 629; Howard v.…

1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.

This action was commenced in the circuit court of Newton county to determine the title to certain lands in said county. The plaintiffs claimed title to the lands in controversy under, and by virtue of items three and eleven of the last will and testament of John McMahan, deceased, who is the common source of title, and the first section of the codicil to said will.

The said provisions of the will are in these words:

“3. In order that my wife, my daughter Leah and my adopted son William McMahan, may have ample support, I give and bequeath unto them, the following described land, viz: Seven…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Patch v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Riggs v. MyersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
  3. Willard v. DarrahSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
  4. Rines v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
  5. RoBards v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Spotts v. SpottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
  2. Burrier v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
  3. Wooley v. HaysSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
  4. Kerens v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1920
  5. Baker v. WrightSupreme Court of Alabama · 1952

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API