Wallace v. Boston
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to Carroll Circuit Court. That the court erred in admitting evidence under the general issue of ml dehit, without notice, to-show a failure of consideration. See Steinback vs. Ellis, 1st Mo., 293; Bev. Code, Article 7, sec. 19 of Practice at Law. That quiet possession of land from the vendor to the vendee, is sufficient consideration at law, to give a recovery of the purchase money.
Read the full summary
ERROR to Carroll Circuit Court. That the court erred in admitting evidence under the general issue of ml dehit, without notice, to-show a failure of consideration. See Steinback vs. Ellis, 1st Mo., 293; Bev. Code, Article 7, sec. 19 of Practice at Law. That quiet possession of land from the vendor to the vendee, is sufficient consideration at law, to give a recovery of the purchase money. See Brown, et al. vs. Beeves, et al., 7th Martin’s Louisiana Bep., 235; Olt vs. Garland, 7th Mo., 28. That when there is a covenant for title, to make a want of consideration a good defence atlaw, the vendee…
1Opinion of the CourtMcBride, J.
Wallace, as an assignee of Langford, brought his action by petition and summons in debt, against Boston, on a promissory note for $133, due twelve months after date, and dated the 22d August, 1842. Plea, nil debit.— Judgment for the defendant. Motion in arrest and for a new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions taken, and the case brought to this Court by writ of error.
Upon the trial in the Circuit Court, the defendant offered evidence to prove, that the note sued on, was given in consideration of a tract of land purchased by him from Langford; that Langford had executed his title bond…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State ex rel. Bankers Reserve Life Ass'n v. ScottNebraska Supreme Court · 1899
- Sloan v. Territory ex rel. ReadNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1891