Miller v. Davis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Perry Circuit Court. Equity follows the law, and the bill shows upon its face that the grantor of defendants in error, William Davis, was by law precluded from owning or entering the land in question. Equity, therefore, affords no relief either to said William Davis or the defendants in error, who are his privies in estate. (Sto.
Read the full summary
Error to Perry Circuit Court. Equity follows the law, and the bill shows upon its face that the grantor of defendants in error, William Davis, was by law precluded from owning or entering the land in question. Equity, therefore, affords no relief either to said William Davis or the defendants in error, who are his privies in estate. (Sto. Eq., 3d ed., §§ 6,12, 13, 16,17, 64 ; State v. Matson, 38 Mo. 489 ; Dilly v. Barnard, 8 Gill & J. 171; Field v. Myers, 37 Mo. 434; 28 Mo. 335.)
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
This case is here by writ of error. The original judgment was rendered in 1857, and at the time it was rendered the defendant was a minor of tender years, and claims that three years have not expired since his majority. Before suing out this writ of error, defendant appeared in the Circuit Court and filed a motion to set aside the judgment on the grounds of alleged errors in the proceedings. Whether this motion ought to have been made or could have been entertained after the lapse of so many years, it is *573unnecessary to decide. It is sufficient that the case is here within three years after…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Childs v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Flesner v. CooperSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
- McIntire v. McIntireSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Doster v. Manistee National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Sell v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.