Fischer v. Dent
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. (1) A general warranty deed like the one in question, can only be set aside when it is procured by fraud or undue influence, or by mistake, and such fraud, undue influence and mistake must be charged in the petition, and not only charged, but must be proven as charged.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge. (1) A general warranty deed like the one in question, can only be set aside when it is procured by fraud or undue influence, or by mistake, and such fraud, undue influence and mistake must be charged in the petition, and not only charged, but must be proven as charged. Anderson v. Gaines, 156 Mo. 664; Brown v. Fickle, 135 Mo. 495'; Taylor v. Crocket, 123 Mo. 300'; Studdard v. Wells, 120 Mo. 25. Moreover, the courts say that the mistake must be mutual and both the mistake and the agreement must be made out by satisfactory and clear…
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, C.
Reformation of Deeds: Mistake. This is a suit by the plaintiff against E. E. Dent, Mary A. Judson, Nathaniel D. Hobson and Earl A. Seay, defendants, to reform a deed made by the plaintiff April 27, 1907, Hobson and Seay purporting to convey to them all the portion of lots two and three of block fifteen west side of the creek in the city of Salem, Dent county, Missouri, described as follows, to-wit: “Commencing thirty-five feet east of the northwest corner of said lot two, thence east twenty-five and a half feet, thence south one hundred and sixty-five feet, to the south line of lot…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Berger v. BhendArizona Supreme Court · 1955
- Zink v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1954
- Robo Sales, Inc. v. MclntoshSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
- Krick v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1942
- Maze v. BoehmSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.