Reports of Cases Determined by the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri Volume 59 (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1875 edition. Excerpt: ...for Plaintifi in Error. W. Patrick, for Defendant in Error. NAP'PON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was a suit for $50, before a justice, where the plaintifi got a judgment, but on appeal to the Circuit Court, the court, on the evidence, found for defendant, and there would be no question for this court to decide, had not the Circuit Court refused an instruction asked for the plaintiff. The facts were that the plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a sale and purchase of a lot in the city of St. Louis, at a price named, and plaintifi paid the defendant $50 to bind the bargain. But upon their subsequent meeting at the office of a real estate agent, and a tender of a deed by defendant, the plaintifi declined to receive it, because it conveyed the lot subject to the taxes of 1872. In other respects the deed was conceded to be just such a one as he had contracted for. The plaintifi swore on the trial that he (as purchaser) was to have a title exempt from all taxes; and the defendant swore that the agreement was that the taxes of 1872 were expressly excepted. There was some proof that the plaintiff's evidence, on the trial be fore the justice, did not exactly correspond with the statement in the Circuit Court, and therefore the Circuit Court, where the whole case was submitted without any jury, might very well have found as it did. But the plaintiff asked this instruction: If the court believe from the evidence, that the plaintifi paid the sum of $50 to defendant, on account of a parol agreement for the purchase of land, the terms of which were and are in dispute be McDonald v. Lynch, et al. tween the parties, and are unsettled and not executed, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover saidsum of $50 so paid....

R703

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles7030
Mobicred@R66pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1875 edition. Excerpt: ...for Plaintifi in Error. W. Patrick, for Defendant in Error. NAP'PON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was a suit for $50, before a justice, where the plaintifi got a judgment, but on appeal to the Circuit Court, the court, on the evidence, found for defendant, and there would be no question for this court to decide, had not the Circuit Court refused an instruction asked for the plaintiff. The facts were that the plaintiff and defendant agreed upon a sale and purchase of a lot in the city of St. Louis, at a price named, and plaintifi paid the defendant $50 to bind the bargain. But upon their subsequent meeting at the office of a real estate agent, and a tender of a deed by defendant, the plaintifi declined to receive it, because it conveyed the lot subject to the taxes of 1872. In other respects the deed was conceded to be just such a one as he had contracted for. The plaintifi swore on the trial that he (as purchaser) was to have a title exempt from all taxes; and the defendant swore that the agreement was that the taxes of 1872 were expressly excepted. There was some proof that the plaintiff's evidence, on the trial be fore the justice, did not exactly correspond with the statement in the Circuit Court, and therefore the Circuit Court, where the whole case was submitted without any jury, might very well have found as it did. But the plaintiff asked this instruction: If the court believe from the evidence, that the plaintifi paid the sum of $50 to defendant, on account of a parol agreement for the purchase of land, the terms of which were and are in dispute be McDonald v. Lynch, et al. tween the parties, and are unsettled and not executed, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover saidsum of $50 so paid....

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

September 2013

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

September 2013

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 12mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

224

ISBN-13

978-1-236-83649-6

Barcode

9781236836496

Categories

LSN

1-236-83649-9



Trending On Loot