Hill v. Bailey
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. Where the Statute of Limitations is relied upon as a defence, it must be pleaded. — Tramell v. Adams, 2 Mo. 155; Benoist v. Darby, 12 Mo. 196 ; Boyce v. Christy, 47 Mo. 70 ; Wynnes v. Cory, 48 Mo. 346 ; Stiles v. Smith, 55 Mo. 366. “ No lapse of time is ¡i bar to a direct trust, as between trustee and cestui que trust.” — Baüey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Dillon v. Bates, 39 Mo. 292. Adverse possession must be hostile, and taken under color…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court. Where the Statute of Limitations is relied upon as a defence, it must be pleaded. — Tramell v. Adams, 2 Mo. 155; Benoist v. Darby, 12 Mo. 196 ; Boyce v. Christy, 47 Mo. 70 ; Wynnes v. Cory, 48 Mo. 346 ; Stiles v. Smith, 55 Mo. 366. “ No lapse of time is ¡i bar to a direct trust, as between trustee and cestui que trust.” — Baüey v. Barnett, 12 Mo. 3; Dillon v. Bates, 39 Mo. 292. Adverse possession must be hostile, and taken under color of title, before the statute runs. Hamilton v. Boggs, 63 Mo. 233 ; Wil-Jcinson v. Allen, 67 Mo. 502.- The mortgagee in…
1Opinion of the CourtLewis, P. J.
In 1846, John Scott and wife conveyed the real estate iu controversy to Solomon P. Ketchum and Franklin A. Dick, in trust, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes in favor of the defendant, George Bailey. In 1849, Scott and wife conveyed the same property to Britton A. Hill, plaintiff, and George Marshall, in trust, for the use and benefit of the wife during her natural life, with remainder to the children of the grantors. Mrs. Scott died in 1854, leaving children, the plaintiffs Thomas J. Scott, William E. Scott, and Emma, who afterwards married the plaintiff George Wright. In 1862…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Elmendorf v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Nelson v. BrodhackSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Demarest v. WynkoopNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Shaler v. Van WormerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1863
- Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad v. MooreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Stephenson v. Van BloklandOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- Christopher & Simpson Architectural Iron & Foundry Co. v. E. A. Steininger Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1918
- McArthur v. ClarkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Sutton v. ClarkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1901
- Quinn v. Willamette Pulp & Paper Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.