¶1dissenting. In my opinion, as the parol declarations or admissions of Drumrite were received to convert his absolute deed into a mortgage, they should have been taken altogether. Do this, and it will appear from the admfssions that if it was a mortgage, it was one with the power of sale; and as the conveyance made by Drumrite to Yaughn was noth*331ing but an execution o£ the power of sale reserved to Drumrite in the agreement between him and Wilson, there is now no right of redemption in Wilson. If there was any thing due Wilson after the sale to Yaughn, this was not the proper form of action for its recovery. Wilson should have a deed for the portion of the land not sold, and should pay all the costs as well in this court as in the court below.
21 Mo. 325
Wilson v. Drumrite
Decided July 15, 1855
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1855-07-15
This was a suit brought by Wilson against Drumrite & Yaughn, the object of which was to redeem two hundred acres of land, held under a conveyance from the plaintiff to Drum-rite, purporting to be absolute, but claimed by the plaintiff to have been intended as a mortgage. The defendant, Vaughn, held one hundred and twenty acres under a deed from Drum-rite, but was alleged to have purchased with notice of the plaintiff’s equity.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1855-07-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1920
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →