Janney v. Spedden
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Pettis Circuit Court. I. The facts stated in the petition do not authorize the judgment rendered. The petition contains no equity ; Jan-ney, being divested of title, has none over which a cloud can hang. II. The original suit was a proceeding in chancery, in which all admit that constructive notice by publication as to non-residents is sufficient.
Read the full summary
Error to Pettis Circuit Court. I. The facts stated in the petition do not authorize the judgment rendered. The petition contains no equity ; Jan-ney, being divested of title, has none over which a cloud can hang. II. The original suit was a proceeding in chancery, in which all admit that constructive notice by publication as to non-residents is sufficient. The court thereby obtained jurisdiction, and jurisdiction was not lost by a dismissal of so much of the petition as asked the enforcement of a vendor’s lien, and especially as Janney was a non-resident — January v. Rice, 33 Mo. 409; Head’s…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, Judge
This was a petition for equitable relief, praying to have a judgment, a sale of real estate under the judgment, a sheriff’s deed to the purchaser at the sale, and a deed from the purchaser to a third person (one of the defendants), declared void, and that the plaintiff have restitution of the possession of the property sold.
It appears that the plaintiff and one Adam Householder had bought certain lands of Robert R. Spedden, and given their two notes for the balance of the purchase money unpaid, and taken from the vendor a bond for a deed conveying the title when the notes should be fully paid…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Stewart v. AndersonTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Fithian v. MonksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Cole v. Parker-Washington Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1918
- Beedle v. MeadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Jones v. YoreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.