Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

33 Mo. 370

Ensworth v. Holly

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1863

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1863-01-15

I. The gist of the action is the breach of the contract. The action for a breach of contract is a personal action, not a real action. A real action is an action concerning real estate, or an action whereby the same may be affected, as in suit to recover the land or the possession. A suit to sell the land by enforcement of a lien or otherwise, a suit to abate a nuisance, and in all such like cases which affect the land and not the person, the venue is local.

Cited in Black's (1910)’s definition of “Concerning, Concerned”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1964

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

2018631870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Dryden, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was a suit for the specific execution of a contract for the sale of land, brought in the county of Buchanan.

¶3The petition showed that the lands sued for lay wholly in the counties of Gentry and Holt. The defendants demurred to the petition and assigned for cause that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action; the demurrer was sustained and the plaintiff brings the case to this court by appeal.

¶4The demurrer was properly sustained. “ Suits concerning real estate, or whereby the same may be affected, shall be brought in the county within which such real estate or some part thereof is situate.” (§ 3, art. 4, R. C. 1855, p. 1221.) Surely this was a suit which concerned or affected real estate. Its only object was the legal title to the lands in controversy. The Buchanan court clearly had no jurisdiction, and the objection appearing on the face of the petition, was the ground of demurrer under the provisions of the 6th section of art. 6 of the practice act. (R. C. 1855, p. 1231.)

The other judges concurring,

¶5the judgment of the Common Pleas is affirmed.

/33/mo/370 · .json · Public domain