Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Citation
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Parent Document
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1902-02-18
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8296427/leet-v-gratz/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (42)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
- Leet v. Gratz, 92 Mo. App. 422 (1902)
Full Text
621 charsPlaintiff claims this ruling of the trial court was erroneous; because the defendant, having been served with notice by him to appear and defend the ejectment case, must make good the entire sum he paid to save an eviction by what was adjudged to be the paramount title. Defendant contends, on the other hand, that he is not bound by that judgment at all, that it is only prima facie evidence that the title of the Gannon heirs was paramount and that he had the right in this action tó show Leet purchased a worthless instead of a superior title, and, hence, has no right to recover any part of the consideration he paid.