Bryson & Hardin v. Penix

18 Mo. 13
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1853
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 18 Mo. 13 (Bryson & Hardin v. Penix) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bryson & Hardin v. Penix, 18 Mo. 13 (Mo. 1853).

Opinion

Scott, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

1. The eighth section of our act, concerning fraudulent conveyances, is a transcript of a similar provision in the Massachusetts code. Code of 1836, p. 473, sec. 5. Under that statute it has been held, that when personal property is mortgaged without a delivery thereof to the mortgagee, and the mortgage is not recorded, a party who buys the property of the mortgagor and takes possession of it, though he has knowledge of the mortgage, will hold the property against the mortgagee. Travis v. Bishop, 13 Met.

So, in the case of Cook v. Clifford, 12 Mo. 379, under the fifth section of our act concerning fraudulent conveyances, it was held, that the purchaser of a slave from a loanee, who had had five years possession, would hold him against the lender, although he had full knowledge of the circumstances.

It is very true, that the recording of a mortgage or dbéd' of trust, does not prevent its being assailed for fraud, but there is no evidence of fraud in this case but the purchasing with notice of the prior unrecorded deed, and, as that is warranted by law, it cannot be regarded as a fraud.

2. Our statute prescribes no time within which a deed or conveyance shall be recorded. Under such circumstances, a [16]*16party must have a reasonable time for that purpose, which is to be determined from the circumstances of each case ; and when a deed is recorded within a reasonable time, it has relation back to the time of execution. 4 Kent, 458. The question, whether the deed, in the present case, was recorded in a reasonable time, was not raised in the court below, nor was any evidence preserved in relation to it, except the mere dates of the respective deeds. The other judges concurring, the judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Billings
170 F. Supp. 253 (W.D. Missouri, 1959)
Exchange Bank of Kahoka, Missouri v. Morgan
222 F.2d 567 (Eighth Circuit, 1955)
Exchange Bank of Kahoka v. Morgan
222 F.2d 567 (Eighth Circuit, 1955)
United States Hoffman Machinery Corp. v. Lauchli
150 F.2d 301 (Eighth Circuit, 1945)
In Re Coombs
37 F. Supp. 495 (W.D. Missouri, 1940)
Adamson v. Fogelstrom
300 S.W. 841 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1927)
Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Adam
287 F. 347 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Birmingham v. Carr
197 S.W. 711 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1917)
Saunders v. Ohlhausen
127 Mo. App. 546 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
First Nat. Bank of Buchanan County v. Connett
142 F. 33 (Eighth Circuit, 1905)
Harrison v. South Carthage Mining Co.
68 S.W. 963 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
State v. Stowe
33 S.W. 799 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
Martin-Perrin Mercantile Co. v. Perkins
63 Mo. App. 310 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
Mead v. Maberry
62 Mo. App. 557 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1895)
State ex rel. Kaufman v. Sitlington
51 Mo. App. 252 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1892)
Way v. Braley
44 Mo. App. 457 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1891)
Hughes v. Menefee
29 Mo. App. 192 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Swiggett v. Dodson
38 Kan. 702 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1888)
Coover v. Johnson
86 Mo. 533 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Funkhouser v. Ingles
17 Mo. App. 232 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Mo. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryson-hardin-v-penix-mo-1853.