Stayton v. Hastain
Supreme Court of Missouri
Transferred from Kansas City Conrt of Appeals. (1) Although defendant in his individual capacity acquired the note in question after its maturity, yet he stands in the shoes of and has all the rights and benefits of a purchaser before maturity, because he is the transferee of a. purchaser-before maturity. Langsford v. Yarner, 65 Mo. App. 370; Bank v. Stanley, 46 Mo. App. 440; Griswold v. Buechle, 72 Mo.
Read the full summary
Transferred from Kansas City Conrt of Appeals. (1) Although defendant in his individual capacity acquired the note in question after its maturity, yet he stands in the shoes of and has all the rights and benefits of a purchaser before maturity, because he is the transferee of a. purchaser-before maturity. Langsford v. Yarner, 65 Mo. App. 370; Bank v. Stanley, 46 Mo. App. 440; Griswold v. Buechle, 72 Mo. App. 53. (2) It is a general principle that a man cannot be divested or deprived of his property without his own consent or voluntary act and to divest him of his property by the act of an…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodson, J.
The plaintiff brought this suit in the circuit court of Bates county for the purpose of setting aside a deed of trust upon eighty acres of land, situate in said county, and to remove from his title thereto the cloud cast upon it by said deed.
The land formerly belonged to one Herbert D. Gosman, who, on February 12, 1888, executed the deed of trust in question to W. A. Hastain, trustee, to'secure his promissory note for the sum of $1,000, of even date, payable to A. C. Avery, due three years after date, and bearing interest at eight per cent, which deed of trust was properly recorded on April…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lewis v. SchwennSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Chouteau v. RiddleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Benton County v. CzarlinskySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890