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

1,613 chars

Second. In Lawless v. Collier’s Ex’rs, supra, Collier, the deceased, had conveyed to Gamble a certain tract of land which the latter afterwards conveyed to Mills. Growing *434doubtful about bis title, Gamble bought from Luke E. Lawless, who claimed under the heirs of Amos Stoddard, a one-fifth interest in the estate of said heirs and was thereby enabled to protect the title to the land he conveyed to Mills, making the latter secure in the possession thereof. Afterwards tire Collier title was defeated by the title of the Stoddard heirs; and Virginia Lawless, as the assignee of Gamble, sued on the covenants contained in Collier’s deed to the latter. The question was as to the measure of damages, which the court charged to be the sum paid by Gamble to Lawless for the interest acquired by the former in the estate of the Stoddard heirs. It was ruled in that case by the Supreme Oourt that no eviction was required in order to enable the plaintiff to recover substantial damages, for the reason that the title conveyed by Oollier had been defeated and the grantee of that title, or his assigns, held by one adverse, to-wit, that of the Stoddard heirs, which had been declared paramount. That case is, therefore, the ordinary one of the acquisition of a paramount title by a grantee, his own having been defeated, which all the authorities hold amounts to a constructive eviction and takes the place- of an actual one. If Gamble had endeavored to acquire the paramount title from Lawless and failed, the case would have been like the present; one and there would have been no recovery of substantial damages.

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text