Groves' Heirs v. Fulsome
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from Crawford Circuit Court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The evidence offered hy the complainant and excluded hy the Circuit Court, proved every allegation in the bill and more, and came from competent witnesses. It was, therefore, relevant and competent. If the bill did not present an equitable case, the defendants should have demurred.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from Crawford Circuit Court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The evidence offered hy the complainant and excluded hy the Circuit Court, proved every allegation in the bill and more, and came from competent witnesses. It was, therefore, relevant and competent. If the bill did not present an equitable case, the defendants should have demurred. This they did not do, but answered, virtually admitting the equity and relying on facts to repel it. Groves had a right to enter the land. Fulsome, the husband, had no right of preemption at the time. He had…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was a suit in chancery, begun by Ezekiel Groves, (who, dying, was replaced by his heirs,) against Jesse Fulsome, John Propste and others. The bill states that in May, 1836, E. Groves entered the tract of land which is the subject of this controversy, containing eighty acres, at the land office in the Jackson district. In February, 1837, Groves agreed to convey the land to E. Wilson, and bound himself in a penalty to make a title on or before the 1st March, 1840. At the date of this agreement, Susannah Fulsome lived on the land, which had some improvements upon it. Groves and Wilson,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Shaw v. ShawSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Treadway v. WilderNevada Supreme Court · 1872
- Damschroeder v. ThiasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Leahey v. WitteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Marshall v. HillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.