Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)

Citation: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Parent Document: Grumley v. Webb, 48 Mo. 562 (1871)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 1871-10-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8046745/grumley-v-webb/ ↗

Full Text

1,251 chars

*570It is then insisted that the receipt fails to meet these requirements. If that were so it would not invalidate the receipt as regards the use sought to be made, of it here. It was not given in evidence to prove either a sale or conveyance, but to establish the fact of an accord and satisfaction which included and extinguished the plaintiff’s equity. The plaintiff’s objection as regards the 'point now under consideration is without force, unless it is shown that the plaintiff’s interest in the leasehold was of such a nature that it could not be destroyed in the manner stated in the answer — that is, by an accord followed up and consummated in a complete satisfaction. The plaintiff’s counsel cite and rely upon Hughes v. Moore, 7 Cranch, 466, as the strongest-case to be found in the books in support of their position. But that case does not prove that the plaintiff’s equity could not be.extinguished by the accord and satisfaction evidenced by the receipt. It proves the direct opposite of that, as we shall presently see. In that case the equitable owner made a parol agreement, for a certain consideration agreed to be paid, to surrender and transfer his equitable interest in certain lands to" the bargainees who held the legal title.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text