Ott v. Garland

Supreme Court of Missouri

Ott v. Garland

7 Mo. 28

DecidedMay 15, 1841

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Mo. 28 (Ott v. Garland) 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

Ott v. Garland, 7 Mo. 28 (Mo. 1841).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Cowrt by

Tompkins, Judge.

Garland obtained judgment in the circuit court against Ott, on a note made by him to one Sanford, and by Sanford assigned to Garland, the appellee. Ott pleaded that the note was made without consideration. After judgment he moved for a new trial.

Elias T. Langham, a witness produced by the defendant Ott, testified that the note was given in consideration of a lot of ground in St. Louis county, to be conveyed by said [29]*29Langham to the defendant; that the deed had never been made to the defendant; the witness stated that he had said lot to Wm. T. Sanford, same above mentioned, and purchased it again; that the note was made payable to Sanford to secure one Brent in a sum of money which he owed to said Brent; that these circumstances were known to Sanford when he' received the note, and that the indorsement to Garland was to enable him to collect the money.

. A parol agreem’t for of kndi constitutes^, sideration, in I&w,for a note purchase mo-SpuTc^or in P0S3e3' land, and a deed has not been refused.

The witness stated that there was nothing in writing betwixt him and the defendant relative to the conveyance of the said land by witness; but that the defendant was in possession of the land, and had been making improvements on it, and that he was ready to make a deed to the defendant; but that none had been either tendered or demanded.

The evidence in the cause seems to me to be sufficient to prove a valuable consideration. If, indeed, the defendant have reason to believe that, although he is in possession of the land, and Langham is ready to make a deed, yet that the title of Langham is not secure, his remedy is in a court of chancery, where such matters are properly cognizable. But as there has been a possession taken by him, and for some time held, and as it is proved that although no tender of a deed has been made, yet he has not demanded one, and remains m possession, this court cannot say that there is not a sufficient consideration for the execution of such note.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Cowrt by

Tompkins, Judge.

Garland obtained judgment in the circuit court against Ott, on a note made by him to one Sanford, and by Sanford assigned to Garland, the appellee. Ott pleaded that the note was made without consideration. After judgment he moved for a new trial.

Elias T. Langham, a witness produced by the defendant Ott, testified that the note was given in consideration of a lot of ground in St. Louis county, to be conveyed by said [29]*29Langham to the defendant; that the deed had never been made to the defendant; the witness stated that he had said lot to Wm. T. Sanford, same above mentioned, and purchased it again; that the note was made payable to Sanford to secure one Brent in a sum of money which he owed to said Brent; that these circumstances were known to Sanford when he' received the note, and that the indorsement to Garland was to enable him to collect the money.

. A parol agreem’t for of kndi constitutes^, sideration, in I&w,for a note purchase mo-SpuTc^or in P0S3e3' land, and a deed has not been refused.

The witness stated that there was nothing in writing betwixt him and the defendant relative to the conveyance of the said land by witness; but that the defendant was in possession of the land, and had been making improvements on it, and that he was ready to make a deed to the defendant; but that none had been either tendered or demanded.

The evidence in the cause seems to me to be sufficient to prove a valuable consideration. If, indeed, the defendant have reason to believe that, although he is in possession of the land, and Langham is ready to make a deed, yet that the title of Langham is not secure, his remedy is in a court of chancery, where such matters are properly cognizable. But as there has been a possession taken by him, and for some time held, and as it is proved that although no tender of a deed has been made, yet he has not demanded one, and remains m possession, this court cannot say that there is not a sufficient consideration for the execution of such note.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Mo. 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ott-v-garland-mo-1841.