Burns v. Bangert
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) Plaintiffs having bought the land, pending the litigation, cannot maintain this suit. They are purchasers of a mere litigation right. Bispham’s Eq., sec. 166; 2 Story’s Eq. 1040; BeHoughton v. Money Law, 2 Chan. Ap. 160 ; Smith v. Harris, 43 Mo. 557; Wallen v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 522; Railroad ®. Railroad, 20 Wis. 183; Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Younge and Coll. 481, 499 ; French «. Shotwell, 5 Johns.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals. (1) Plaintiffs having bought the land, pending the litigation, cannot maintain this suit. They are purchasers of a mere litigation right. Bispham’s Eq., sec. 166; 2 Story’s Eq. 1040; BeHoughton v. Money Law, 2 Chan. Ap. 160 ; Smith v. Harris, 43 Mo. 557; Wallen v. Railroad, 74 Mo. 522; Railroad ®. Railroad, 20 Wis. 183; Prosser v. Edmonds, 1 Younge and Coll. 481, 499 ; French «. Shotwell, 5 Johns. Ch. 566 ; McMahon ». Allen, 34 Barb. 56; Gardner ®. Adams, 12 Wend. 297; Marshall v. Means, 12 Ga. 61; Wilhite v. Roberts, 4 Dana, 172. (2) The children of…
1Opinion of the CourtRat, J.
This cause has twice been in the St. Louis court of appeals, and is reported in Bangert v. Bangert, 13 Mo. App. 144, and Burns v. Bangert, 16 Mo. App. 22.
In 1872, one Tieman was the owner of a valuable and productive farm, designated, in the evidence, as the Columbia bottom farm, upon which he resided at the *171date of Ms death in said year. Tie left as his widow, Wilhelmine Charlotte Tieman, usually spoken of as Charlotte, and four minor children. The widow con-, tinued, with the said children; to reside upon the said farm after his death, and held the same under the provision of Tieman’s will,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Vogler v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- Mueller v. KaessmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Woodford v. StephensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Walker's Administrator v. WalkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1857
- Davis v. LandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Flesh v. LindsaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Ball v. WoolfolkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1903
- Holliday v. ManskerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- Ault v. EllerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Mason v. GitchellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888