Birge v. Bock
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Witheow, Judge. (1) The previous decision in this case, as well as the numerous authorities then cited, establish beyond controversy that, while a contract for the sale of land is still executory, by operation of law and without any agreement of the parties to that effect, the purchaser has a right to demand a good and marketable title. Birge v. Bock, 24 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. James E. Witheow, Judge. (1) The previous decision in this case, as well as the numerous authorities then cited, establish beyond controversy that, while a contract for the sale of land is still executory, by operation of law and without any agreement of the parties to that effect, the purchaser has a right to demand a good and marketable title. Birge v. Bock, 24 Mo. App. 330. The purchaser has a right, not merely to a good but to an indubitable title ; only such title is marketable. Swayrve v. Lyon, 67 Pa. St. 436 ; 2 Warvelle on Yendors,…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is the same action which was •before the court on a former appeal. 24 Mo. App. 330. On the former appeal two questions were before the court: Whether in an action by the vendor upon an -executory contract for the sale of land, to recover damages for the non-performance of the contract, the burden of proof to show that there was a good title is upon the vendor or vendee ; and incidentally to the first question, whether a petition which fails to state that, at the time •of making the contract, the vendor had a good title to the land, states a cause of action. The court held that, in such a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Luckett v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Birge v. BockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ross v. SmileyColorado Court of Appeals · 1902
- Thompson v. DickersonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
- Lanyon v. ChesneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Ross v. SmileyColorado Court of Appeals · 1902