Burt v. Warren
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. The provisions of the Revised Statutes •entitle plaintiffs to the relief prayed for in this action if it appeared (1) that plaintiffs are in possession of the property in controversy; (2) if the claim made by the •defendant is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs and •constitutes a cloud upon the plaintiffs ’ title.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Hon. Leroy B. Valliant, Judge. The provisions of the Revised Statutes •entitle plaintiffs to the relief prayed for in this action if it appeared (1) that plaintiffs are in possession of the property in controversy; (2) if the claim made by the •defendant is adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs and •constitutes a cloud upon the plaintiffs ’ title. And the only defence that can be made to this action is (1) defendant can disclaim all right and title adverse to the petitioners, and (2) if defendant claims an adverse title he must show by his answer…
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
This is an action instituted under section 3562, Revised Statutes, 1879, to quiet title. The petition states the necessary facts entitling the plaintiffs to» relief under the statute. The defendant appeared and answered, admitting that the plaintiff was in possession, and claiming that defendant had an interest in the land arising out of the following facts : The plaintiff Burt and one Gardner, who is the grantor of plaintiff Wilson, entered into a contract with defendant, whereby they, bound themselves to divide whatever amount above twenty-eight thousand five hundred dollars the land sold…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Von Phul v. PennSupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
- Dyer v. BaumeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Rutherford v. UllmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1868
- Webb v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Babe v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Northcutt v. EagerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896