Holland v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Land Court. I. The action was one for cancellation, rescission, and for general relief; and prior to the late code was purely an equity suit. Such a case was only triable by the court, and no instructions could be asked, or any legal propositions announced, on the trial by the court.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Land Court. I. The action was one for cancellation, rescission, and for general relief; and prior to the late code was purely an equity suit. Such a case was only triable by the court, and no instructions could be asked, or any legal propositions announced, on the trial by the court. It was the duty of the court to make á decree on the petition, answers, and evidence ; and the whole case will be reviewed in this court on its merits, as shown by the pleadings and evidence — 21 Mo. 93; 28 Mo. 129, 322; 20 Mo. 431. II. The fraud by misrepresentation and by concealment was…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was a suit in the nature of a bill in equity, for rescission aiid cancellation of a contract in respect of an exchange of lands. The petition asked for rescinding the contract, and also prayed for general relief; but it was admitted on argument that the prayer for rescission could not be granted, because the property had been changed in such a manner that it was impossible to have it restored. But it is contended that, although that part of the bill failed, the court should still have awarded the plaintiff compensation, under the prayer for general relief.
Judge Story says, “ the usual…
2Cited by40 opinions
- Sprinkle v. Wellborn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Rains v. MoulderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Strand v. GriffithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
- McGhee v. BellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- Bailey v. SmockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.