Williamson v. Gottschalk
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: 1 Hill, on Mort. (,4th ■ed.) 323, sec. 2; Dixon on Subrogation, 20; Mullanphy v. Simpson, 3 Mo. 492 (Houck ed. 262) ; Wolf v. Watter, 56 Mo. 292 ; Schouler on Pers. Prop. 558 ; Powers v. Powers, 11 Yt. 262 ; 2 Perry on Trusts (2d ed.), 176, sec. 602; Davis v. Warfield, 38 Ind. 461; Gibson v. Mosier, 9 Mo. 257 (Houck ed.T54); Smith’s Ld. Cas.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. cited: 1 Hill, on Mort. (,4th ■ed.) 323, sec. 2; Dixon on Subrogation, 20; Mullanphy v. Simpson, 3 Mo. 492 (Houck ed. 262) ; Wolf v. Watter, 56 Mo. 292 ; Schouler on Pers. Prop. 558 ; Powers v. Powers, 11 Yt. 262 ; 2 Perry on Trusts (2d ed.), 176, sec. 602; Davis v. Warfield, 38 Ind. 461; Gibson v. Mosier, 9 Mo. 257 (Houck ed.T54); Smith’s Ld. Cas. (Hane & Wall, ■ed.) 274, 216; 2 Greenl. on Ev., title Tender, secs. 569, 600 ; Eslow v. Mitchel, 26 Mich. 500 ; Adams v. Helm, 55 Mo. 468; Wag. Stat. 1026, sec. 14; Beale v. Dale, 25 Mo. 301; White v. Yan…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
Williamson, the holder of the first deed of trust on certain ■chattels, sued Gottschalk, who had possession of them, in *426replevin. Prior to the commencement of the suit, Gotts— chalk offered to pay to Williamson the balance due on the-note secured by his deed. Williamson was willing to accept-this money and release the deed of trust, but Gottschalk seems to have wished to keep the incumbrance alive. Om this point the negotiations fell throughWilliamson sued to replevin, and Gottschalk, not setting up that he was the-holder of a second deed of trust, pleaded that he had tendered to Williamson…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Heaps v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886