Gwin v. Smur
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon.. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs’ contention that they were not bound by the terms of the contract, because Mrs. Smur was a married woman, is no excuse.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon.. R. H. Field, Judge. (1) Plaintiffs’ contention that they were not bound by the terms of the contract, because Mrs. Smur was a married woman, is no excuse. It is for the party resting under the disabilities, if any, to take advantage of it, and not for the other party to raise it for us in order to escape the effect of its terms, and this is particularly true when the party bound does not show, or attempt to show, or even allege any offer of compliance, upon their part, with the contract. This contract was' especially good as to John M. Smur.…
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
In December, 1886, Gwin and Dougherty made what purported to be a contract with the defendant Smur and his wife for the purchase of' certain real estate which was owned by Mrs. Smur as her general property. Gwin and Dougherty paid on the contract the sum of $500. Subsequently, Gwin and Dougherty brought suit against Smur and wife asking specific performance of the contract. But the circuit court decided the case for the defendant Smur, and dismissed the bill and principally on the ground that, as the real estate *364covered by tbe so-called contract was not tbe equitable separate estate of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Baker v. ClaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- Gwin v. SmurrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Union National Bank v. LyonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Black v. MillerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Coffman v. WaltonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Lorenz v. MorneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1926