Legal Opinion

Charpiot v. Sigerson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 15, 1857PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was an action to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of land. Issues were framed and submitted to a jury, and the following, among other instructions, was given to the jury: “ 1. Possession of the land in question, as mentioned in the pleadings, may be either actual or constructive. Actual possession needs no explanation; it may be seen there for itself. It may be with or without inclosures, buildings or cultivation.

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court. This was an action to enforce specific performance of a contract of sale of land. Issues were framed and submitted to a jury, and the following, among other instructions, was given to the jury: “ 1. Possession of the land in question, as mentioned in the pleadings, may be either actual or constructive. Actual possession needs no explanation; it may be seen there for itself. It may be with or without inclosures, buildings or cultivation. Constructive possession is different ; as where a man has title to land, though it be wild and untenanted, if no person have…

1Opinion of the CourtLeonaed-, Judge

We reverse this judgment on account of the instruction in reference to possession. In applying the equity of specific performance to real estate, there is a modification of a rule of statute law, which at first sight appears inconsistent with it, and repugnant to the maxim that “ equity follows the law.” The modification to which we refer is that of enforcing parol, contracts relating to land on the ground that they have been already performed in part. The wisdom of allowing this deviation from the written law has been much doubted, but the doctrine is too firmly established by precedent,…

2Cited by12 opinions

  1. Kinney v. MurraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
  2. Emmel v. HayesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
  3. Asbury v. HicklinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
  4. Johnson v. ReadingMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
  5. Adair v. AdairSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API