Hamilton v. Armstrong
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. O. M. Spenceb, Judge. (1) While actual fraud was claimed in the petition, none was proved. The findings of the court-below upon this point should be satisfactory. (2) The-grantees in the deeds were nieces of the grantor, and no relation is shown but that growing out of this kindred relation. Undue influence is never presumed from a relationship which the law sanctions and approves.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. O. M. Spenceb, Judge. (1) While actual fraud was claimed in the petition, none was proved. The findings of the court-below upon this point should be satisfactory. (2) The-grantees in the deeds were nieces of the grantor, and no relation is shown but that growing out of this kindred relation. Undue influence is never presumed from a relationship which the law sanctions and approves. Goit v. Patchen, 77 N. Y. 539; Aid Society v. Loveridge, 70 N. Y. 387; Carty v. Connolly, 27 P.. R. 600; McCaul v. McCaul, 10 Sup. Ct. R. 707; Schouler on Wills-, secs.…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
This is a suit for the partition of certain real estate, which prior to his death John Hamilton owned in the city of St. Joseph as a tenant in common with Edward W. Hamilton, his brother, the plaintiff herein. The petition charges that the defendant, Eliza Armstrong, a sister, and the plaintiff, Edward Hamilton, are the sole heirs at law of John L. Hamilton, deceased; that plaintiff is seized of the "undivided three-fourths of the lands in controversy, and Mrs. Armstrong, of an undivided one-fourth therein. It then makes this averment:
“And plaintiff further states that the said defendant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Conley v. NailorSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Sneathen v. SneathenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Ralston v. TurpinSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Maddox v. MaddoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Standiford v. StandifordSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- In re Estate of SoulardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Bates v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- Loewen v. ForseeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Lindell Real Estate Co. v. LindellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- Cornet v. CornetSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.