95 Mo. 383 | Mo. | 1888
This is a proceeding in equity in
Plaintiffs introduced defendant Trigg as a witness, who testified as follows: “I am seventy-three years old; I lived in Cloud county, Kansas, before coming here, on my farm of one hundred and sixty acrqs ; defendant John Booth is my nephew; his mother and my wife were sisters ; he lived on a place adjoining mine in Kansas; my farm was a little better than his; Aultman & Company sued him for a machine he bought and had not paid for ; he has no property in Kansas now; he lives in the southeast corner of Polk county, near Greene county line ; I did tíave a little store there ; am
Defendant Booth was also introduced as a witness by plaintiffs, and in his evidence fully corroborates Trigg as to the fact that neither he nor his wife had paid one cent for the land, but that it was bought and paid for with the money of Trigg ; also as to the agreement that he was to support and care for Trigg, as testified to by him, and convey the land back to him when he wanted it. , He also testified that outside of the land he had no other means to carry out this agreement with Trigg. The fact that the land in question was bought and wholly paid for with the money of Trigg is
It is insisted that said agreement to convey not being in writing, but resting in parol, is within the statute of frauds. Granting this to be so, Booth might have declined to execute the contract on that ground. He did' not do so, but on the contrary, waived his right in that respect and executed the deed to Trigg according to the intention of the parties, the agreement made and the right of the matter. As early as the case of McGowen v. West, 7 Mo. 570, it was laid down that: “The person making a parol contract to convey lands may or may not insist on the protection of the statute of frauds. If he will confess the agreement and not insist on the statute, its performance will be enforced against him.” The doctrine of that case is reaffirmed in Farrar v. Patton, 20 Mo. 81.
There is no equity in, plaintiffs’ case under the evidence, and the judgment being for the right party, it is hereby affirmed.