Tatum v. Holliday
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The doctrine as to staleness of claim does not apply to this case. The bill was filed in 1871. The sale was made in 1862. Some one or other of the plaintiffs had been endeavoring for several years to induce McCune to stand by the agreement made for redemption. It is not stale as to the minors and the feme covert. (Tyl.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The doctrine as to staleness of claim does not apply to this case. The bill was filed in 1871. The sale was made in 1862. Some one or other of the plaintiffs had been endeavoring for several years to induce McCune to stand by the agreement made for redemption. It is not stale as to the minors and the feme covert. (Tyl. Inf., p. 159.) Neither is it stale as to the other plaintiffs, — sufficient time for the enforcement of the right of action, not having elapsed, to create a bar by any analogy to the statute of limitations. (Bollinger vs. Chouteau, 20…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a bill in equity, filed in the Circuit Court in March, 1871, to set aside a sale made under a deed of trust, and asking for permission to redeem. The deed of trust was executed in 1852, by David Tatum and Sophia A., his wife, to secure a note to one James M. Nelson for $5,000, with interest at the rate of six per cent, and payable in two years from date. David Tatum died in 1854, intestate. The plaintiff, Sophia A. Tatum, is his widow, and had a dower interest in *425the property. The other plaintiffs are the heirs of David Tatum, and at the time of the sale were all minors except three.…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Springer v. KleinsorgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State ex rel. Reid v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- West v. AxtellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Dunham v. HartmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Dunn v. McCoySupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.