Tetherow v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to De Kalb Circuit Court. I. The deed was void for uncertainty. (Long vs. Wagner, 47 Mo. 180; Campbell vs. Johnson, 44 Mo. 250; Worthington vs. Hylyer, 4 Mass. 205; Lawson vs. Mead, Lalor [N. Y.], 158; Larrabee vs. Hodgskins, 58 Me. 413; Orr vs. How, 55 Mo. 328.) H. The court erred in admitting evidence that the land was known as “block 52.” There is no latent ambiguity in the deed.
Read the full summary
Error to De Kalb Circuit Court. I. The deed was void for uncertainty. (Long vs. Wagner, 47 Mo. 180; Campbell vs. Johnson, 44 Mo. 250; Worthington vs. Hylyer, 4 Mass. 205; Lawson vs. Mead, Lalor [N. Y.], 158; Larrabee vs. Hodgskins, 58 Me. 413; Orr vs. How, 55 Mo. 328.) H. The court erred in admitting evidence that the land was known as “block 52.” There is no latent ambiguity in the deed. There was no evidence to be controverted that the description would apply to two localities. Hence, extrinsic testimony on this point was inadmissible. (Campbell vs. Johnson, supra; Hardy vs. Matthews, 38…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiff, to recover the possession of a piece of land in De Kalb county, which was described in the petition hy metes and bounds.
The answer admitted that defendant was in possession, but denied all the other allegations of the petition.
The plaintiff, to sustain his case, read in evidence a patent from the State of Missouri to the land in controversy, and then rested. The defendant, on his part, then introduced a warranty deed from the plaintiff to one Levi Tetherow for “ block 52, in DeKalb Co., Mo.,” and showed that the plaintiff put his…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Springer v. KleinsorgeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Hammond v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Charles v. PatchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Borer v. LangeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Marvin v. ElliottSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.