Morris v. Pate
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Kansas Court of Common Pleas. I. If tlie mortgage to Thomas had not been made at the time the deed was, it can not be supposed that he intended to lose his lien for the purchase money when he takes the mortgage on all the land for all the debt remaining unpaid, and takes it on nothing else.
Read the full summary
Error to Kansas Court of Common Pleas. I. If tlie mortgage to Thomas had not been made at the time the deed was, it can not be supposed that he intended to lose his lien for the purchase money when he takes the mortgage on all the land for all the debt remaining unpaid, and takes it on nothing else. If it were taken on all the land for part of the debt, or on part of 'the land for all the debt, then it might be inferred that he did not rely on his lien for part of the debt in one case, and in the other that he did not rely on part of the land to pay his debt. But it would be a singular…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
The plaintiff, together with six others, held a note on the defendant Pate for $2,500, and a mortgage of eighty acres of land, near Kansas city, to secure its payment. At the time this note and mortgage were executed by Pate, he had not yet obtained any title to the land, except that which a bond for a title from his vendor implied, and he was still indebted for a portion of the purchase money, amounting to $640. A few days after the execution of the note and mortgage to the seven persons above referred to, of whom one was the plaintiff, Pate received from his vendor a deed and at the same…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Rogers v. TuckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Linville v. SavageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Hannah v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Brackett v. BrackettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Winn v. Lippincott Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.