Pennington v. Stanton
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. W. S. Heendon, Judge. (1) This was not a gift but a sale. Stanton paid full value for this land. The trial court does not find that any undue influence was exercised. Taylor v. Crockett, 27 S. W. Eep. 620. (2) The deed being just in itself and its consequences, it will not be avoided on the ground of undue influence.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — Hon. W. S. Heendon, Judge. (1) This was not a gift but a sale. Stanton paid full value for this land. The trial court does not find that any undue influence was exercised. Taylor v. Crockett, 27 S. W. Eep. 620. (2) The deed being just in itself and its consequences, it will not be avoided on the ground of undue influence. Moore v. Moore, 67 Mo. 192; Turner v. Turner, 44 Mo. 535; Hamilton v. Armstrong,27 S. W. Eep. 1051. (3) No fraud, mistake, deception or undue influence was exercised by Stanton or anyone else. Mrs. Groff: had no children and no relatives…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
The plaintiffs are a sister and brother, and two of the heirs at law of Mrs. Polly Goff, who died in Andrew county in August or September, 1892. On the first day of March, 1889, by warranty deed, duly executed, acknowledged and delivered, and on the next day filed for record in the office of the recorder of deeds for said county, Mrs. Goff, party of the first part, conveyed her farm in said county, containing about ninety-one acres, to the defendant, William Stanton, party of the second part, for the following consideration and agreement expressed in said deed, to wit: “In consideration of…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Lee v. LeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- Weakley v. WeakleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1947
- Jones v. BelsheSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Boland v. Shell Oil Co.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 1947
- Winston v. LuskMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914