after-acquired property clause in Missouri

1924After discussing certain defects in the deed in question this court said at page 309: "In addition to this the rule in this State is that the doctrine of after-acquired property does not apply to a married woman's deed (at any rate if it was made prior to 1889 when the Married Woman's Act was passed), but that without regard to the form of the deed only whatever interest she had at the date of the deed passes." [Citing Brawford v. Wolfe and other cases.] In Conrey v. Pratt, 248 Mo. 576 , the question of inurement of after-acquired title was in issue, the grantor being a married woman.

1921In Hendricks v. Musgrove, 183 Mo. 300 , l.c. 309, it was said: "In addition to this the rule in this State is that the doctrine of after-acquired property does not apply to a married woman's deed (at any rate if it was made prior to 1889 when the Married Woman's Act was passed), but that without regard to the form of the deed only whatever interest she had at the date of the deed passes. [Brawford v. Wolfe, 103 Mo. l.c. 397; Ford v. Unity Church Society, 120 Mo. l.c. 509.]" This ruling was affirmed in Conrey v. Pratt, 248 Mo. 576 , l.c. 583.

1935Co. v. Smith, 170 Mo. 327 , 330, 70 S.W. 700, 701 , stating: "It will be observed that the mortgage contains an after-acquired property clause, and that this after-acquired property was secured between the date of the mortgage and the foreclosure of the mortgage").

1935Co. v. Smith, 170 Mo. 327 , 330, 70 S.W. 700, 701 , stating: "It will be observed that the mortgage contains an after-acquired property clause, and that this after-acquired property was secured between the date of the mortgage and the foreclosure of the mortgage").

1935The assumption of a personal liability where none before existed has been held a consideration for *Page 1186 the modification of a contract. [Carter v. Rhodes, 135 Cal. 46 , 66 P. 985 .] If, on August 29, 1922, appellant was willing to and did release respondents from their personal obligations under the contract of August 4, 1922, in exchange for the legal right to enforce against the general property of the Ozark Southern Railway Company its personal obligations evidenced by said notes and the possible advantages to accrue to appellant therefrom, accompanied by the relinquishment of the cor

1935The assumption of a personal liability where none before existed has been held a consideration for *Page 1186 the modification of a contract. [Carter v. Rhodes, 135 Cal. 46 , 66 P. 985 .] If, on August 29, 1922, appellant was willing to and did release respondents from their personal obligations under the contract of August 4, 1922, in exchange for the legal right to enforce against the general property of the Ozark Southern Railway Company its personal obligations evidenced by said notes and the possible advantages to accrue to appellant therefrom, accompanied by the relinquishment of the cor

1933The contention of the plaintiff that the after-acquired property clause in the deed of trust gives it rights in the furnace superior to those of the defendant is decided against the former upon the following authorities: Dry-Kiln Co. v. Ellington, 172 N. C. 481, 484 ; U. S. v. N. O.

1921In Hendricks v. Musgrove, 183 Mo. 300 , l.c. 309, it was said: "In addition to this the rule in this State is that the doctrine of after-acquired property does not apply to a married woman's deed (at any rate if it was made prior to 1889 when the Married Woman's Act was passed), but that without regard to the form of the deed only whatever interest she had at the date of the deed passes. [Brawford v. Wolfe, 103 Mo. l.c. 397; Ford v. Unity Church Society, 120 Mo. l.c. 509.]" This ruling was affirmed in Conrey v. Pratt, 248 Mo. 576 , l.c. 583.

1921In Hendricks v. Musgrove, 183 Mo. 300 , l. c. 309, it was said: “In addition to this the rule in this State is that the doctrine of after-acquired property does not apply to a married woman’s deed (at any rate if it was made pripr to 1889 when the Married Woman’s Act was passed), but that without regard to the form of the deed only whatever interest she had at the date of the deed passes. [Brawford v. Wolfe, 103 Mo. l. c. 397; Ford v. Unity Church Society, 120 Mo. l. c. 509.]” This ruling was affirmed in Conrey v. Pratt, 248 Mo. 576 , l. c. 583.

1904The deed, therefore, was ineffectual to convey the interest of Mrs. Hendricks then existing or thereafter acquired, in the land. [Nalle v. Clemens, 18 Mo. 486 .] In addition to this the rule in this State is that the doctrine of after-acquired property does not apply to a married woman’s deed (at any rate if it was made prior to 1889 when the Married Woman’s Act was passed), but that without regard to the form of the deed only whatever interest she .had at the date of the deed passes. [Brawford v. Wolfe, 103 Mo. l. c. 397; Ford v. Unity Church Society, 120 Mo. l. c. 509.] The plaintiff, theref

1891Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117 ; Dunham v. Railroad, 1 Wall. 254 ; Thompson v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414 .

1891Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117 ; Dunham v. Railroad, 1 Wall. 254 ; Thompson v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414 .

1891Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117 ; Dunham v. Railroad, 1 Wall. 254 ; Thompson v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414 .