Williamson v. Hall
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. The damages ean only be the value of the easement. I. The fact of the incumbrance being known to the purchaser will be no bar to his recovery upon ij. (Rawle Cov., 123, 124; Kellogg vs. Malin, 50 Mo., 500, and cases cited ; Beach vs. Miller, 51 Ills., 206, and cases cited.) II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. The damages ean only be the value of the easement. I. The fact of the incumbrance being known to the purchaser will be no bar to his recovery upon ij. (Rawle Cov., 123, 124; Kellogg vs. Malin, 50 Mo., 500, and cases cited ; Beach vs. Miller, 51 Ills., 206, and cases cited.) II. The true rule of compensation in this case is the damage resulting to the estate in its market value from the incumbrance (this is such an incumbrance as the plaintiff or defendant can not remove). (Wetherby vs. Bennett, 2 Allen, 428; Woodby vs. Ludby, 14 Allen 1.) A just compensation…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
On the 27th day of August, 1873, the defendant sold and conveyed to the plaintiff, in fee, “all the north-east quarter of the south-east quarter, of section No. three, Township, No. sixty-one, Range No. thirty-five, forty acres, more or less.” The deed, which was executed by the defendant and his wife, contained, among others, an express covenant, “that the said premises are free and clear of any incumbrances done or suffered by them or those under whom they claim.” On the 25th day of November, 1867, Thomas Yaughan, from whom the defendant acquired title, relinquished to the Missouri Yalley…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Tyler v. AndersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Missouri State Oil Co. v. PessinaSupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- Rathke v. TylerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- McDonald v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1918
- Whiteside v. MagruderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.