Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Widget HTML #1

(DOWNLOAD) "Hanson v. Lancaster" by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Hanson v. Lancaster

πŸ“˜ Read Now     πŸ“₯ Download


eBook details

  • Title: Hanson v. Lancaster
  • Author : Supreme Court of Montana
  • Release Date : January 05, 1951
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 58 KB

Description

Submitted December 5, 1950. 1. Deeds Γ’€” Evidence insufficient to sustain findings. In action to cancel a deed to farm lands alleged to have been given by plaintiff to defendant through fraud and without consideration, evidence did not sustain trial court's finding that defendant agreed to pay a certain amount for realty and assume a mortgage thereon. 2. Evidence Γ’€” Effect of party giving contradictory evidence on own behalf. Where a party to an action gives contradictory evidence in his own behalf, he is dealt with fairly by giving credence to that portion of his evidence which is least favorable to him, if there is no other evidence in case corroborating that given which supports version most favorable to such party. 3. Estoppel Γ’€” Estoppel imposed by law here. Defendant who borrowed money on strength of the written record that he was the owner of the property was estopped by law to deny a sale. 4. Pleading Γ’€” Pleading contract. While the district court found that defendant did not prove the agreement relied upon by him, it was held by the Supreme Court that the agreement was substantially pleaded by him. 5. Deeds Γ’€” Legal and equitable ownership. Agreement here made defendant holder of mere legal title while plaintiff was still equitable owner. 6. Trusts Γ’€” Defendant held to be trustee. Defendant was trustee with right of subrogation if mortgage is paid off. 7. Vendor and purchaser Γ’€” Credit for share of crop to be applied on mortgage. Held that under the agreement defendant was obligated to give plaintiff credit on the mortgage for share of crops produced on farm. 8. Improvements Γ’€” No right to charge for improvements. The defendant had not the right to make improvements on the premises and to charge to the plaintiff without obtaining her consent in writing in advance of making the improvement.


Download Books "Hanson v. Lancaster" PDF ePub Kindle