Alexander v. Warrance
Supreme Court of Missouri
Jlppeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. 1. Tbe court below dismissed tbe suit because tbe plaintiff sought to eject a party in possession and claiming adversely, and in tbe same petition prayed for partition with other parties. This was^rror.
Read the full summary
Jlppeal from Si. Louis Circuit Court. 1. Tbe court below dismissed tbe suit because tbe plaintiff sought to eject a party in possession and claiming adversely, and in tbe same petition prayed for partition with other parties. This was^rror. See art. 8, §12 of new code; also art. 3, §6. E-vsiif there was a misjoinder of actions, the suit ought np.Vt'o have been dismissed, but the plaintiff should have beep/permitted to dismiss one branch of it. 2. A resulting trust cannot be set up against a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. Property paid for by the husband amir conveyed to…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
This was an action under the new code, begun in November, 1851, by Alexander against Goode, Warrance and others. Its object was to obtain a partition amongst the heirs of Catharine Warrance, and those claiming title under them, of a piece of *230ground situated in the St. Louis commons ; and to eject Wm. Warrance, tbe husband of the said Catharine, from the possession of it. William Warrance alone defended the action, and it was dismissed on the ground 'of misjoinder or multifariousness.
It appears that the city of St. Louis, on the 10th day of October, 1843, made a perpetual lease of the premises…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burris v. PageSupreme Court of Missouri · 1849
3Cited by13 opinions
- Curd v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Woodward v. WoodwardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Turner v. TurnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Donovan v. GriffithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1908
- Tremmel v. KleiboldtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.