Cooper v. Deal
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Iron Circuit Court.—Hon. John L. Thomas, Judge. (1) The petition of plaintiff does not state a cause of action. First. For the reason that it states no equity. It does not state facts showing either a mutual mistake of the parties or fraud on the part of the defendant Deal. The general allegation of fraud or mistake is not enough. Bliss on Code Pleading [2 Ed.] sec. 211. Second.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Iron Circuit Court.—Hon. John L. Thomas, Judge. (1) The petition of plaintiff does not state a cause of action. First. For the reason that it states no equity. It does not state facts showing either a mutual mistake of the parties or fraud on the part of the defendant Deal. The general allegation of fraud or mistake is not enough. Bliss on Code Pleading [2 Ed.] sec. 211. Second. For the reason that the plaintiff’s right of action, if any ever existed, has long since been barred by the statute of limitations. The petition and evidence show that the deed was made and delivered…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
This is an action to reform the description in a deed executed by the defendant, Henry -J. Deal, dated October 22, 1875, in which he conveyed to James A. and Andrew F. Cooper a tract of land in Stoddard county by the following description:
‘ ‘Commencing at a stake fifty feet south of the center of the line of the Cairo, Arkansas & Texas railroad where said railroad crosses the section line between sections 22 and 23 on the west line of the northwest quarter of southwest quarter of said section 23, thence south two hundred and fifty feet, more or less, with the section line to a stake, thence…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dunn v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Deal v. CooperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Epperson v. EppersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Burkholder v. HendersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899