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

1,044 chars

But in commenting upon tbe fourth count it is said: “It seems to tbe court that this compensation was in lieu of tbe patent itself, and must have-been intended to extinguish bis right to tbe patent.” There-was no doubt in tbe minds of the court as to the sale of the équitable interest being within tbe statute of frauds. This principle was broadly decided, and is given by Judge Curtis in tbe head-note, in bis edition’ of tbe report, as the only principle decided. Tbe majority of tbe court evidently hesitated in coming to tbe opinion that tbe compensation was to be considered in lieu of tbe patent, and that it barred a suit for ' tbe land. The language used is extremely cautious, and while tbe case is often cited as a leading authority to maintain tbe proposition that a promise to pay a sum of money in consideration of tbe release of an equitable titlé is within tbe statute of frauds, I cannot find that it has ever been followed in any other case for tbe further purpose of extinguishing title upon parol agreement and compensation.

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text