Priest v. McFarland
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court. — Eon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The evidence as to declarations by Harriet McFarland concerning the consideration for the deed in controversy is res inter alios acta as to these plaintiffs, and is not competent as against them. They do not claim in privity with the declarant. Its admission was error.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lincoln Circuit Court. — Eon. James D. Barnett, Judge. (1) The evidence as to declarations by Harriet McFarland concerning the consideration for the deed in controversy is res inter alios acta as to these plaintiffs, and is not competent as against them. They do not claim in privity with the declarant. Its admission was error. Brown v. Patterson, 224 Mo. 639; Howell v. Sherwood, 242 Mo. 540; Davis v. Green, 102 Mo. 183; Spradling v. Conway, 51 Mo. 54. (2) A power to convey the fee given to a tenant for life is a power appendant, and the estate conveyed by the execution of the…
1Concurrence
CONCURRING OPINION.
BROWN, J.
I concur in the opinion of my brother Bond in so far as it holds that, under the power conferred by the will of Walter McFarland, Sr., the widow was fully authorized to sell less than a fee simple title in said testator’s lands, and that her deed to Abraham McFarland and Walter McFarland, Jr., passed a vested remainder to those parties and was in form legal and valid. [Dewein v. Hooss, 237 Mo. 23.]
I am, however, convinced that the widow was not authorized by the will to give away the land of the testator. The evidence is conflicting as to whether there was a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dewein v. HoossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911