Halferty v. Scearce
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court. — William Henry, Esq., Special Judge. (1) Parol evidence is admissible to show the actual consideration for a deed. 17 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, page 438, and cases cited. (2) Plaintiff not having renounced the settlement made upon her by her husband, she could not claim under him as doweress.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clinton Circuit Court. — William Henry, Esq., Special Judge. (1) Parol evidence is admissible to show the actual consideration for a deed. 17 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, page 438, and cases cited. (2) Plaintiff not having renounced the settlement made upon her by her husband, she could not claim under him as doweress. R. S. 1889, sec. 4530. (1) The deed from Solomon Halferty to plaintiff will not operate to bar plaintiff’s claim by virtue of section 4529, Revised Statutes, 1889. Because not made before marriage and not expressed to be in release and satisfaction of dower. Section…
1ConcurrenceSherwood, J.
(concurring) — Nota Bene. — I improve this occasion to say that the above case necessarily gives tacit recognition to the idea that a wife possessed of a mere dower right in her husband’s land may so contract with him as to make valid a conveyance to her of a tract of his land in consideration *434of the concurrent relinquishment by her of her dower right in another tract of her husband’s land; such relinquishment constituting a consideration for such conveyance to her. This has been the settled law of this state ever since Caldwell v. Bower, 17 Mo. 564. See, also, Woodson v. Pool, 19 Mo. 340. To…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Livingston v. LivingstonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- William & Mary College v. PowellSupreme Court of Virginia · 1855
- Merrill v. BullockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Holloway v. HollowaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Kesner v. TriggSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.