Powell v. Hunter
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) This is an action to enforce a vendor’s lien, which has always been held to be an action in equity. Dickerson v. Fisher, 137 Mo. 342; Talbot v. Roe, 171 Mo. 421. And this is true even if the action be regarded, as it is, in a sense a suit for specific performance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. (1) This is an action to enforce a vendor’s lien, which has always been held to be an action in equity. Dickerson v. Fisher, 137 Mo. 342; Talbot v. Roe, 171 Mo. 421. And this is true even if the action be regarded, as it is, in a sense a suit for specific performance. Taylor v. Williams, 45- Mo. 80'; Sease v. Cleveland and Coy, 141 Mo. 488. The principles which govern a suit for specific performance are the same as those which govern a suit to enforce a vendor’s lien. Paris v. Haley, 61 Mo. 453. The petition nowhere prays…
1Opinion of the CourtCraves, J.
Plaintiffs claim to be the assignees of a written instrument, in words and figures, as follows:
“ Caruthersville, Mo., May 6, 1896.
“Know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas C. Powell, of the county of Labe and the State of Tennessee, that for and in consideration of the sum of five dollars per acre to me in hand paid and to be paid by James W. Cannady, of New Madrid, Mo., I have this day granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed with deed in fee with general warranty unto the said James W. Cannady and unto him, his heirs .and assigns forever, the following described tract or parcels of land…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dickason v. FishesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Waugh v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Reasor v. MarshallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Roberts v. AbbottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920