Martin v. Maddox
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. I. The court erred in excluding the proof which appellant offered to make, because the assent of the beneficiaries named in said deed cured any defect which might arise from the terms and provisions thereof, and testimony to prove such assent was competent to rebut alleged fraud, whether constructive or actual. II. Upon the whole case as proved and offered to be proven, the judgment should have been for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Rylakd, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court. ’
The plaintiff brought his action against Maddox, the defendant, who, as sheriff of St. Louis county, had seized and taken, by virtue of an execution to him directed, certain property which the plaintiff claims by virtue of a deed of trust made by True W. Hoit to the plaintiff as trustee for the benefit of certain creditors of Iioit named in the deed.
The following is the deed of trust: “This deed made this '20th day of November, 1854, by and between True W. Hoit, •party of the first part, Missionary E. Martin, party of the second part, both of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Brooks v. WimerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Burrows v. AlterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1842
- Wright v. HartNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Armstrong v. TuttleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1864