Skaggs v. Nelson

25 Miss. 88
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1852
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 25 Miss. 88 (Skaggs v. Nelson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skaggs v. Nelson, 25 Miss. 88 (Mich. 1852).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Yerger

delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as stated in the complainant’s bill, do not make a case, entitling him to any lien on the land for the notes named in the bill.

[94]*94The vendor’s lien for the purchase-money is founded' upon an implied trust between the vendor and purchaser; and this court has distinctly held, that if the vendor makes the purchaser a deed, an assignee of a note for the purchase-money has no lien upon the land for the payment of the note. 6 How. R. 362. In the present case, the complainant was not the vendor of the land. On the contrary, he states, that “Jonathan T. Nelson sold the land to defendant, and conveyed to him by deed, and that complainant paid Nelson the amount of defendant’s purchase, and took defendant’s note directly to himself for the amount thus paid; and in this way, by general agreement of the parties, was substituted as defendant’s creditor for the purchase-money, and was put in the place of, and clothed with, all the rights, powers, and privileges of the vendor, in relation to the premises.” The true statement of this case shows that the relationship of vendor and vendee never existed between these parties. And, as the vendor received his whole purchase-money when he made the conveyance, he never had any lien on the land which could be assigned, even if the vendor’s lien, where he had made a conveyance, was the subject of assignment.

We are thus driven to the “general” parol agreement, which it is said was made, that complainant should have a lien on the land for the purchase-money. To give effect to such an agreement would violate the whole spirit of the statute of frauds, and introduce the very evils it was intended to guard against.

The decree of «the court below was erroneous, and must be reversed, and the complainant’s bill dismissed.

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

Related

Dorrah v. Hill
73 Miss. 787 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1896)
Louisiana National Bank v. Knapp
61 Miss. 485 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1884)
Murphree v. Countiss
58 Miss. 712 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1881)
Pearl v. Hervey
70 Mo. 160 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)
Howell v. Bush
54 Miss. 437 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1877)
Rutland v. Brister
53 Miss. 683 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1876)
Perkins v. Gibson
51 Miss. 699 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1875)
Malone v. Kaufman
38 Tex. 454 (Texas Supreme Court, 1873)
Davidson v. Allen
36 Miss. 419 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Miss. 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skaggs-v-nelson-miss-1852.