Cass County v. Oldham

75 Mo. 50
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1881
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 75 Mo. 50 (Cass County v. Oldham) 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
Cass County v. Oldham, 75 Mo. 50 (Mo. 1881).

Opinion

Hough, J.

On the 8th day of February, 1869, John Q. Oldham executed a mortgage to Cass county on lands described as follows: "West half of lot 1, northwest quarter section 5, and east half lot 1, northeast section 6. The township and range were both omitted. On April 12th, 1873, Oldham executed a deed of trust on the west half lot 1, northwest quarter section 5, and east half lot 1, northeast quarter section 6, township 44, range 32, in favor of one Henry Freese, to secure the payment of a note therein described, bearing the same date and having nine months to run. In March, 1877, the trustee, in execution of the power conferred upon him, sold the land conveyed by said trust deed, and said Freese became the purchaser. The note executed by Oldham on April 12th, 1873, and secured by the trust deed, was in renewal of a note previously given by Oldham to Freese. The present suit was brought by the county to reform the mortgage given to ]t,_ so as to make it state that the land attempted to be conveyed thereby was in township 44 and range 32 — the same land conveyed to Freese.

The record of the mortgage to the county was not constructive notice to Freese that the land mortgaged to him had been previously mortgaged to the county. Campbell v. Johnson, 44 Mo. 247. There is no evidence that Freese had actual notice of the mortgage to the county, and it would be absurd to say that constructive notice puts a man upon inquiry.

Freese was not only a purchaser without notice, but he was also an incumbrancer for value. “ The giving of further time for the payment of an existing debt, by a valid agreement, for any period however short, is a valuable consideration, and is sufficient to support a mortgage [53]*53as a purchase for a valuable consideration.” Jones on Mortg., §’ 459. The judgment, which was for the defendant, must, therefore, be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Federal Land Bank v. McColgan
59 S.W.2d 1052 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
Hudson-Houston Lbr. Co. v. First State Bank
1928 OK 214 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1928)
Ridings v. Hamilton Savings Bank
219 S.W. 585 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Wiseman v. Watters
174 S.W. 815 (Texas Supreme Court, 1915)
Ozark Land & Lumber Co. v. Franks
57 S.W. 540 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Smith v. Richardson
77 Mo. App. 422 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1898)
Blacker, Gerstle & Co. v. Ryan
65 Mo. App. 230 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1896)
Martin v. Nixon
92 Mo. 26 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 Mo. 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cass-county-v-oldham-mo-1881.