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

1,300 chars

In this ease, Leet got possession and enjoyed it for years. He was not ousted, he did not relinquish the premises to the paramount title nor extinguish it. Part of it, the interest of the adult heirs, he undoubtedly acquired. How about the interest of the minors ? If plaintiff had been ousted by them and they put in possession, that would be a complete breach so far as the liability of the defendant is concerned; and after discharging his liability therefor, he would be exposed to no danger of further loss on his covenant; or, if Leet acquired their interest by a valid conveyance and the defendant should reimburse him for the outlay incurred in so doing, he would likewise be secure. But the case is altogether different if the *433measures taken to pass their title were ineffectual; for then their judgment for possession remained unsatisfied and in force with the title to the land still vested in them,'and they may oust the occupant at any time or leave him in possession indefinitely. He is not in possession as their tenant or under any contract which is binding on them. He does not hold under them but still holds under the deed made to him by Alice A. Harris, subject to an eviction when the curator of the minors chooses, or by them when they reach their majority — perhaps before.

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text