Simpson v. Mundee
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Leavenworth County. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. After the absolute conveyance of the lots by Brown to Mundee, Brown retained no lien. The court below failed to see the distinction between a vendor’s lien after an absolute conveyance, and a lien where the contract of sale is unexecuted.
Read the full summary
Error from Leavenworth County. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. I. After the absolute conveyance of the lots by Brown to Mundee, Brown retained no lien. The court below failed to see the distinction between a vendor’s lien after an absolute conveyance, and a lien where the contract of sale is unexecuted. In the latter case, the vendor holds the legal title as security for the payment of the purchase money; in the former, the vendor retains a mere equity, which, to become of any force, must be established by a decree of the court. Until so established, it…
1Opinion of the Court
By the OouH,
Crozier, C. J.
On the 21st day of October, A. D. 1859, Warren Brown, one of the defendants in error, being the owner of certain lots in Leavenworth, conveyed the same to Charles Mundee, another of the defendants in error, by a general *179quit-claim deed of that date of which, the following is a copy:
“Know all men by these presents that I, "Warren Brown, of the county of Leavenworth, territory of Kansas, in consideration of a certain promissory note bearing even date with these presents, for the amount of fifteen hundred dollars payable twelve months after date without interest,…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Markham v. WatermanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1919
- Snyder v. MartinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Smith v. AllenWashington Supreme Court · 1897
- Greeno v. BarnardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Ogden v. WaltersSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.