Hazen v. Barnett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. A parol partition of lands, when accompanied by possession, is valid. (20 Barb. 127 ; 4 Johns. 212; 9 Johns. 276; 4 Kent Com. 369, note a; 24 Mo. 400 ; Com. Dig., ch. 5.) The petition shows that, in pursuance of their agreement, Atwood conveyed one-half the land to Barnett, and that Barnett failed to convey to Atwood.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court. A parol partition of lands, when accompanied by possession, is valid. (20 Barb. 127 ; 4 Johns. 212; 9 Johns. 276; 4 Kent Com. 369, note a; 24 Mo. 400 ; Com. Dig., ch. 5.) The petition shows that, in pursuance of their agreement, Atwood conveyed one-half the land to Barnett, and that Barnett failed to convey to Atwood. This constituted a valid cause of action on the part of those claiming under Atwood, for a specific performance of the contract. (20 Mo. 84; 4 Wall. 519.) cited Wildbahn v. Robidoux, 1 Mo. 659; Ery Spec. Perform. 166, 253, 365; Sto. Eq. PL…
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, Judge
The petition in this case states that James C. Barnett and Eraukliu B. Atwood were tenants in common of the lands described in the petition, and by parol agreement they made a partition of the land, each party taking possession of the part allotted to him under such agreement; that Atwood confirmed this agreement by makingyi deed to Barnett; that Atwood sold the part allotted to him to Bitzinger, which was afterwards bought by the plaintiffs’ ancestor, George W. Hazen, under execution sale against Bitzinger, and Hazen died, leaving the plaintiffs his only heirs at law. Barnett also died,…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Betts v. WardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1916
- Yarborough's Adm'r v. AvantSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Oliver v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
- Ingalls Iron Works Company v. IngallsDistrict Court, N.D. Alabama · 1959
- Watt v. LeeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.