Mason v. Gitchell
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. W. H. Horner, Judge. The husband’s curtesy in his wife’s lands, not held to her sole and separate use, is a property right, the sale of which for back taxes, under the revenue law of 1877, conveys a valuable and tangible interest in the land.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. W. H. Horner, Judge. The husband’s curtesy in his wife’s lands, not held to her sole and separate use, is a property right, the sale of which for back taxes, under the revenue law of 1877, conveys a valuable and tangible interest in the land. Dyer v. Whittier, 89 Mo. 81; Kanagha v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 207 ; Valle v. Obenhause, 62 Mo. 90; Cray v. Dryden, 79 Mo. 106 ; Stafford v. Fizer, 82 Mo. 393 ; R. S. 1879, secs. 6831, 6832, 6836, 6837, 6838, 6853; Payne v. Lott, 90 Mo. 676. S. Newman had no interest in the land of his wife that was subject to…
1Opinion of the CourtRay, C. J.
This is the same case in another form as the ejectment case of Gitchell v. Messmer, reported in 87 Mo. 131. In said ejectment suit, the plaintiff Gitchell. claimed title, under a judgment recovered in a suit by the collector, in 1878, to enforce the lien against the property for unpaid taxes for the years from 1871 to and including 1876-, to which Lina Y. Newman was not a party, although her husband was. Since the institution of, and during the pendency of said suit in ejectment by said Gitchell against Messmer, who was the tenant in possession under Mrs. Newman, the collector brought, it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mueller v. KaessmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Burns v. BangertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Gitchell v. MessmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885