Hewes v. Musick
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL PROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. The plaintiff in error was also complainant in the court below, and filed his bill alleging in substance that one Amos Lovering, in May, 1845, conveyed to complainant a valuable tract of land in St. Louis county, containing over 600 acres.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. The plaintiff in error was also complainant in the court below, and filed his bill alleging in substance that one Amos Lovering, in May, 1845, conveyed to complainant a valuable tract of land in St. Louis county, containing over 600 acres. That in June, 1843, Lovering being then the owner of the lands, conveyed the same to John C. Rust and A. Meir, in trust to secure to Jacob Elousch the payment of two promissory notes of Lovering, each for the sum of $175, payable 6 and 12 months from date. That these notes, together with the deed of trust, were assigned…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, J.
Prom the above statement it will be seen that both complainant and defendant contend, that the facts in testimony support each one’s own side of this controversy. It becomes the duty of this court, therefore, to look carefully into the evidence and to determine for which side, the same preponderates. I shall not take anjr notice of the insufficiency of the advertisement: it was very awkwardly drawn up : fora considerable portion of the deed of trust, was copied into it and published : which might well have been left out. I am not willing to reverse the decree of the court below by reason of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- City of St. Louis ex rel. Creamer v. ClemensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873