Guest v. Farley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The deed upon which this controversy arises was executed subsequent to the introduction of the common law and the British statutes anterior to the fourth year of the reign of James I. The statute of uses (27 Henry "VIII) was therefore in force. It is well settled that the statute of uses only executed the first use, where a use was limited upon a use. The second use was left unexecuted and was called a trust. 1 Cruise’s Dig.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. 1. The deed upon which this controversy arises was executed subsequent to the introduction of the common law and the British statutes anterior to the fourth year of the reign of James I. The statute of uses (27 Henry "VIII) was therefore in force. It is well settled that the statute of uses only executed the first use, where a use was limited upon a use. The second use was left unexecuted and was called a trust. 1 Cruise’s Dig. Trusts, eh. 1, §4. 2. This was a deed of bargain and sale for a valuable consideration, which, by the statute of uses, raise…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action of ejectment, begun in 1848, by the plaintiffs in error, who were plaintiffs below, against the defendant, for a lot of ground in St. Louis. The plaintiffs submitted to a nonsuit and sued out this writ of error.
*149Francis Jourdan being the owner of the lot in dispute, on the 4th of March, 1818, conveyed it to Edward S. Gantt, by deed, a part of which is here copied : “This indenture made by and between Francis Jourdan, alias Labross, of the town of St. Louis and Territory of Missouri, of the one part, and Edward S. Gantt, of the other part, witnesseth: that the said Francis…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Cornwell v. WulffSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- McIlvaine v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Michigan Trust Co. v. BronsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- J. T. Faragason Co. v. PittsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926