Snider v. Coleman

72 Mo. 568
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided October 15, 1880·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

Any discussion on the point of the [570]*570legal sufficiency of the administrator’s deed, will not affect the conclusion which should he reached. If plaintiffs were the heirs at law of him under whom they claim, it is sufficient to observe that the land was sold for the debts of their alleged ancestor, aud if the deed-referred to is lacking in formality, this lack will not avail plaintiffs, as the purchaser at the administration sale, Kennard, under whom defendant claims, acquired an equitable title at least to the land in controversy, which title constitutes, when properly pleaded, as is the case here, an equitable defense to the action. Long v. The Joplin Mining Smelting Co., 68 Mo. 422.

And the prayer for general relief, with which the answer concludes, authorized the court to give any relief consistent with the case made by the answer. Siemers v. Kleeburg, 56 Mo., loc. cit. 201; Pomeroy v. Benton, 57 Mo. 531. These views compel a reversal of the judgment.

All concur.

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

Snider v. Coleman, 72 Mo. 568 (Mo. 1880).

72 Mo. 568 (Snider v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schoolman v. Hofstadter
226 Ill. App. 417 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1922)
Noland v. Barrett
26 S.W. 692 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
Henry v. McKerlie
78 Mo. 416 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Grayson v. Weddle
80 Mo. 39 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
Bevin v. Powell
11 Mo. App. 216 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1881)