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

1,238 chars

“The. court has fo.und against the allegation directly, and when specially moved to .amend its conclusions of fact by finding that the. release was..at least proved by parol, the motion was denied. .We have attentively examined the parol proofs as they stand relative to the question-. Parol evidence was freely introduced on both sides, and we are satisfied that the preponderance, is with . the. result that the coúrt arrived at. But if the court refused to find the release .pr discharge alleged, on the ground that the fact could be proved by written .evidence.-pnly, as is claimed by the .appellants, still-we consider that the court did not. jn that particular mistake the law.. As already remarked, the defense went upon the supposition that the plaintiff had, originally an equitable estate in the land, but maintained.,that, the estate had become extinct by release or surrender to the holder of the legal ti.tle. A .release is not by. act.,or operation of law,-but by the .act of the party releasing, .and therefore..the act can be proved only by a deed or conveyance in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the .same, or by his lawful agent thereunto authorized by writing.”

Other Sections in This Document (174)

Full Text