Gilmore v. Cook
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The instructions given by the court were right. The conveyance was only a quit-claim deed, which in its very nature implies that no specific quantity or title is contracted for. No contract, bargain or representation is shown in the case whereby appellants were to get for the price fixed anything more than respondent happened to own at the time.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Charles Circuit Court. I. The instructions given by the court were right. The conveyance was only a quit-claim deed, which in its very nature implies that no specific quantity or title is contracted for. No contract, bargain or representation is shown in the case whereby appellants were to get for the price fixed anything more than respondent happened to own at the time. In accepting a quit-claim deed the appellants took all the risk upon themselves, except so far as any actual fraud committed by their vendor might change their position. II. The verdict was for the right…
1Opinion of the CourtDryden, Judge
This suit was brought on two promissory notes — one for two hundred and the other for twelve hundred dollars— given for the purchase price of a tract of land, in St. Charles county, sold and conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendants by a quit-claim deed.
The defendants sought to recoup a part of the demand on the ground that the plaintiff fraudulently concealed from them, at the time of the sale and conveyance, the fact that he had theretofore granted to the North Missouri Railroad Company the right of way for their railroad through said land. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict and…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Armstrong v. WinfreySupreme Court of Missouri · 1875