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
697 charsThe diligence of defendant’s learned counsel has, therefore, been rewarded by no authority outside the State of North Carolina (which is treated by all commentators as having an anomalous rule in this regard) which impeaches the doctrine that a formal service of notice on a warrantor of the pendency of an action asserting a paramount title, together with a demand of him to defend it, makes the judgment in such suit conclusively binding on him. We rule, therefore, that the notice delivered to Gratz estops him from claiming in the present action that the title of the Gannon heirs, which was adjudged in the ejectment case to be superior to the plaintiff’s, was, by sound law, inferior 'to it.