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/ ↗

Full Text

1,003 chars

In Graggs v. Richardson, 25 Ga. 566; Buckels v. Mouzon, 1 Strob. L. R. (S. C.) 448, and Ferrell v. Alder, 8 Humph. 44, the puichasers with warranties were unable to take possession of the land because of the occupancy of third persons, and brought suit against the occupants to recover possession, giving their warrantors notice of the action. The judgment Avent against the purchaser in each instance, and when he sued his warrantor on the covenant, the judgment was held prima facie evidence against the latter. Neither is a case where a grantee was sued for possession by one claiming to hold the paramount title,'and the opinion in Ferrell v. Alder, supra, distinctly approves the rule that a warrantee in possession, against whom an action of ouster is instituted, may bind his warrantor by the judgment in the action by serving him with timely notice, and elucidates the reason why the rule is not applicable when the warrantee himself is forced to sue an adverse occupant of the premises, saying:

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text