Buckner v. Stine
Supreme Court of Missouri
jError to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. I. The deed of Mendenhall was fraudulent and void as to those who were his creditors at its date. II. The sale by the administrator to the plaintiff conveyed all the interest of Amos Mendenhall, and the deed by Block to the “ heirs and legal representatives of Amos Mendenhall, deceased,” inured to the be'nefit of the plaintiff, and vested in him the legal title, subject to the dower interest of defendant Elizabeth Stine. III.
Read the full summary
jError to Louisiana Court of Common Pleas. I. The deed of Mendenhall was fraudulent and void as to those who were his creditors at its date. II. The sale by the administrator to the plaintiff conveyed all the interest of Amos Mendenhall, and the deed by Block to the “ heirs and legal representatives of Amos Mendenhall, deceased,” inured to the be'nefit of the plaintiff, and vested in him the legal title, subject to the dower interest of defendant Elizabeth Stine. III. All the equities are in favor of the plaintiff, who purchased at the administrator’s sale, and it makes no difference whether…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The plaintiff purchased at administrator’s sale the interest of Amos Mendenhall, deceased, in certain real estate in the town of Louisiana, and filed his petition against Elizabeth Stine, formerly the widow of said Amos, and against her present husband, for a title to said land, and for an assignment to her of her dower interest in the same.
It appears that one Block had given to said Amos, while living, a title bond to the land for the price of $250 ; and that his wife, the said Elizabeth, from her own estate, paid upon it the sum-of $50, and made valuable improvements upon the lots.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dougherty v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Goff v. RogersIndiana Supreme Court · 1880