Stillwell v. Hamm

• Decision Date: 18 March 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 252,97 Mo. 579
• Parties: Stillwell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hamm et al
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 252

97 Mo. 579

Stillwell, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hamm et al

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 18, 1889

Error to Platte Circuit Court. -- Hon. Geo. W. Dunn, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Samuel Hardwicke and James M. Carpenter for plaintiff in error.

(1) A careful reading of the petition will show first, that there is but one cause of action -- a "bill to redeem." (2) That this cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations; because it accrued on the first of January 1882, and suit was instituted on the fifth of October, 1885. (3) That the other parties, Bonifant, etc., are only made parties because the statute requires that they shall be made parties -- as they claim an interest -- so that their rights if any, may be determined. The ground on which the court sustains this demurrer was the fifth cause set out in it, the statute of frauds. That question is fully settled in the case of O'Neil v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202. The sixth and last ground of the demurrer has no foundation -- in fact -- it says: "There is no allegation that said plaintiff offered to carry out said agreement." The petition alleges that the plaintiff had fully performed the agreement and now that the debt is fully paid, asked that the land be restored to him, as it should be.

Jas. W. Coburn for defendants in error.

(1) No cause of action is stated. It is not alleged that Jacob Hamm owned the note, mortgage and judgment, or that he, or any of the defendants, purchased the land under the foreclosure. (2) The alleged agreement was verbal and within the statute of frauds. 1 Jones Mort. Real Prop. [3 Ed.] secs. 323, 331, 332; Howland v. Blake, 97 U.S. 624; Levy v. Brush, 45 N.Y. 539; Richardson v. Johnsen, 41 Wis. 100; Wilson v. McDowell, 73 Ill. 514; Stephenson v. Thompson, 13 Ill. 136; Perry v. McHenry, 13 Ill. 227; McClintock v. McClintock, 3 Brewst. [Penn.] 76. (3) The agreement was a conditional sale. Slowey v. McMurray, 27 Mo. 113; Turner v. Kerr, 44 Mo. 429; McNamara v. Culver, 22 Kas. 661; Price's Heirs v. Evans, 26 Mo. 30; Mansur v. Williard, 57 Mo. 347. (4) The agreement was made in January, 1875, and action brought in October, 1885. The statute of limitations is a bar. Hunter v. Hunter, 50 Mo. 445; Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 187. (5) The discrepancy of twenty dollars between the execution and the judgment did not render void either the execution or sale thereunder. It was known and waived by the execution defendant. Freeman on Ex., sec. 43; Ellis v. Jones, 51 Mo. 181; Davis v. Kline, 76 Mo. 310; Lewis v. Morrow, 89 Mo. 174; Tatum v. Holladay, 59 Mo. 422. (6) Several causes of action were improperly united in the petition, and in the same count. R. S., 1879, sec. 3512, and note b. (7) The several causes of action affected the defendants differently, and different judgments were asked as to them. R. S., 1879, sec. 3512, and note b; Doan v. Holly, 25 Mo. 257; s. c., 26 Mo. 186; Robinson v. Rice, 20 Mo. 229. (8) So far as the suit was intended to quiet title, or to remove a cloud on title, it was improperly brought. R. S., 1879, sec. 3562.

OPINION

Barclay, J.

This case presents for consideration a judgment rendered by the trial court upon demurrer to a petition. The questions involved will best appear from the language of the pleadings.

"AMENDED PETITION.

"Dixon Stillwell, Plaintiff,

)

vs.

)

In the Circuit Court

"Jacob S. Hamm, Jacob Hamm,

)

of Platte County,

Adam Durkes and

)

Missouri.

"Benj. Bonifant, Defendants.

)

"Plaintiff states that on the twenty-sixth day of August, 1870, he was the owner, by fee-simple title, of the following described lands, lying and being situate in the county of Platte in the state of Missouri, viz: The west half of the southwest quarter of section two (2), in township fifty-three (53), in range thirty-six (36), containing eighty acres more or less.

"Plaintiff states that said land was at said time and ever since has been worth the sum of three thousand dollars.

"That said land was the homestead whereon lived this plaintiff with his family, consisting in part of himself and his wife, Susan Stillwell.

"Plaintiff states that on the twenty-sixth day of August, 1870, this plaintiff borrowed of defendant Jacob Hamm, the sum of two hundred dollars.

"Plaintiff states that when the negotiations were made for said loan with Jacob Hamm, at the request of said Jacob Hamm, this defendant signed a note to Jacob S. Hamm, defendant herein, who is a son of said Jacob Hamm. Plaintiff states that said note was given for said sum of two hundred dollars, and was made payable one year after date, and bearing ten per cent. per annum interest from due; said interest, if not paid at the end of each year, to become as principal and bear the same rate of interest.

"Plaintiff states that, at the request of said Jacob Hamm, he gave a mortgage on said land above described to secure said note, the same that is recorded in Deed Book W., on page 315 of the records of Platte county, Missouri.

"Plaintiff states that said Jacob Hamm, after forfeiture of said mortgage, procured that the same be foreclosed in the name of his said son, Jacob S. Hamm; said suit was instituted in the Weston court of common pleas, in which said suit a judgment was obtained by said Jacob Hamm, in the name of his said son, Jacob S. Hamm, against this plaintiff for the sum of two hundred and seventy-six dollars at the spring term of said Weston court of common pleas, A. D. 1874, on the eleventh day of March, 1874.

"Plaintiff states that after said time said Jacob Hamm caused an execution to be issued purporting to be issued on a judgment for the sum of two hundred and ninety-six dollars, whereas, in fact, no such judgment existed.

"Plaintiff states that on objections being made by this plaintiff to such sale the said Jacob Hamm entered into an agreement with plaintiff as follows:

"First. That said Hamm (Jacob) on his part should purchase said land at such pretended sale, and that the conveyance made pursuant to said sale should be held as a mortgage to secure the debt due from this plaintiff to said Hamm, viz.: The said sum of two hundred and seventy-six dollars and interest on the same from the date of said judgment, viz., the eleventh day of March, 1874.

"Second. That this plaintiff should have one year's time in which to pay said debt, provided this plaintiff would pay the costs of said foreclosure suit in said Weston court of common pleas.

"Plaintiff states that pursuant to said agreement he paid said costs; but when said debt became due he was unable to pay the same according to said agreement.

"Plaintiff states that upon his failure to pay said debt and the interest thereon, the said Hamm afterwards, viz., on the -- day of January, 1876, took possession of said land and proceeded to collect all rents and profits of same, and has collected the same to this date.

"Plaintiff states that on the first day of January, 1882, said rents so collected by said Hamm were sufficient to pay said debt and interest and all necessary improvements and the taxes on said land, and that this plaintiff is now entitled to have the possession of the same.

"Plaintiff states that defendant Jacob S. Hamm still claims to have some interest in said land, wherefore he is made a defendant herein that his rights, if any, may be determined.

"Plaintiff states that defendants Adam Durkes and Benjamin Bonifant claim to have some interest in said land, but said Bonifant and Durkes have at all times had full knowledge and notice of the rights and interests of this plaintiff, and that any interest they may claim to have was taken subject to the rights and interests of this plaintiff.

"Wherefore, the plaintiff prays the court to cause said Jacob Hamm to render strict account of all rents and profits derived from said land, to ascertain and declare that said debt from this plaintiff to said Jacob Hamm has been fully satisfied and paid off, and that the court will render their decree divesting defendants of all title and claim to said land, and vesting all title to the same in plaintiff, and that the court will grant all other proper or different relief."

The demurrer was as follows:

"Now come the defendants and demur the amended petition of plaintiff herein for the following reasons:

"First. That the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"Second. That the statute of limitations is a bar to this action.

"Third. Several causes of action have been improperly united, viz., to declare the deed under foreclosure to be a mortgage -- to quiet title -- for an accounting of rents and profits -- and to divest defendants of title.

"Fourth. The causes of action are different as to the different defendants -- to quiet title as to Bonifant, Durkes and Jacob S. Hamm -- an accounting against Jacob Hamm -- and to set aside deeds as to all the defendants.

"Fifth. The alleged agreement between plaintiff and Jacob Hamm, that the marshall's deed under foreclosure should be held a mortgage, is not in writing as required by the statute of frauds.

"Sixth. There is no...