Adams v. Swain
| Decision Date | 31 May 1910 |
| Citation | 129 S.W. 16,228 Mo. 566 |
| Parties | OLINDA V. ADAMS, MARY v. SWAIN, ROSALIND Z. ADAMS and GENEVIEVE LESTER, Appellants, v. JAMES H. GOSSOM, ALVINA T. GOSSOM and DOE RUN LEAD COMPANY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court. -- Hon. Charles A. Killian Judge.
Reversed and remanded (with directions).
Thomas L. Anderson and Henry H. Oberschelp for appellants.
(1) Although the deed named John B. Adams as the grantee, when this property was purchased in 1864 from Joseph Stay, yet the absolute equitable title vested at once in James F. Adams plaintiffs' husband and father, because he was the man who bought the property. He bought it with his own money and his brother had nothing to do with the affair. Bank v Fife, 95 Mo. 128; Richardson v. Champion, 143 Mo. 543; Bispham's Principles of Equity (5 Ed.), p. 133, sec. 79. (2) Regardless of what was the nature of the interest as first acquired, the absolute legal title by reason of adverse possession for the statutory period, had vested in said James F. Adams and his heirs, these plaintiffs. R. S. 1899, sec. 4262; Bank v. Fife, 95 Mo. 126; Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 198. (3) This title by adverse possession covered the entire one hundred and twenty acres. R. S. 1899, sec. 4266; Plaster v. Gabreel, 160 Mo. 674; Rannells v. Rannells, 52 Mo. 108; Hughes v. Israel, 73 Mo. 538. (4) This title acquired by adverse possession for the statutory period is in every way as good for purposes of attack or defense as a title by deeds running back to the Government. Scannel v. Soda Fountain Co., 161 Mo. 618; Kirton v. Bull, 168 Mo. 633. The law requires the tax suit to be brought against the real owner. R. S. 1899, sec. 9303; Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 195; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404. (6) As James F. Adams was dead at the time of the bringing of the tax suit, the judgment was void and the sale under the execution conveyed no title whatever. Perkinson v. Meredith, 158 Mo. 457; Gage v. Cantwell, 191 Mo. 698. (7) Defendants tried to sustain their defense on the contention that Joseph Stay was the record owner, and that there was no notice as to who were the real owners. But that position is not tenable, because there was ample notice that James F. Adams had become the owner. (a) Any facts and circumstances coming to his knowledge that would put a man of ordinary circumspection on inquiry will suffice as actual notice. Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 415. (b) Defendant was conscious of means of ascertaining the ownership and did not use them as an ordinarily prudent and diligent purchaser would have done and is therefore regarded as having had actual knowledge. Taafe v. Kelley, 110 Mo. 127; Memphis Assn. v. Arnett, 169 Mo. 212. (c) The long continued, open and notorious possession of the land by James F. Adams and his heirs stands for notice. St. Joseph v. Baker, 86 Mo.App. 310; Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 95; Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 198. (d) The defendant Gossom, purchaser at the tax sale, and the other defendants through him, are charged with notice of everything contained or recited in the recorded deeds which constitute the chain of title under which they hold, and the very deed by which he acquired the title, the sheriff's deed, informed him of James F. Adams' ownership of the property. McDonald v. Quick, 139 Mo. 498; Patterson v. Booth, 104 Mo. 402; Mason v. Black, 87 Mo. 329. (e) As the collector had information sufficient to put him on inquiry as to who the real owner was, it was necessary to bring the suit for back taxes against the real owner and not the record owner. Joseph v. Baker, 86 Mo.App. 310; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 415. (8) Notice of the real owner was immaterial in this case, or, rather, was conclusively presumed against the defendants, because the very deed by which defendants claim their title, the sheriff's deed, and also all the proceedings on which that deed was based, solemnly adjudged and declared James F. Adams owner. McDonald v. Quick, 139 Mo. 498; Patterson v. Booth, 104 Mo. 402; Mason v. Black, 87 Mo. 329. (9) Even if Joseph Stay were the record owner, and even if the tax proceedings were regular as to Joseph Stay, yet defendant could have gotten no greater interest than if he had purchased the property directly from Stay. That interest would have been nothing, because the absolute title by adverse possession for the statutory period had been acquired by James F. Adams and his heirs, these plaintiffs, which cuts off all interests of the record owner and those claiming by, through or under him, irrespective of how the title by adverse possession arose. Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 97; St. Joseph v. Baker, 86 Mo.App. 316; Watt v. Donnell, 80 Mo. 198.
Jere S. Gossom for respondents.
Section 3150, R. S. 1899, provides that the parties named in the deed shall be presumed to be the owners, and Stay, one of the parties sued, was the record owner, and the judgment was certainly valid as to him and, therefore, passed the title. Lucas v. Land & Cattle Co., 186 Mo. 456; Schnitger v. Rankin, 192 Mo. 35; Land & Mining Co. v. Land & Cattle Co., 187 Mo. 421; Wilcox v. Phillips, 199 Mo. 288. A careful perusal of the record will show that the tax purchaser had no notice whatever of the claim of John B. Adams, or that of plaintiffs. The court found against them on the question of limitation, on any title that they might have thought they had by virtue of their possession, because it is clear that they were not holding adversely to the world; then they bought ten years after the tax sale, and recorded, at the same time the unrecorded deed to John B. Adams was recorded, a deed from the heirs of John B. Adams. Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404.
James F. Adams died in 1878 leaving a widow, Genevieve (intermarried with Lester), and three children, Mary (intermarried with Swain), Rosalind and Olinda. These children and their mother, on August 31, 1905, sued Gossom, his wife and the Doe Run Lead Company to quiet title under section 650, Revised Statutes 1899, in the St. Francois Circuit Court, claiming to own the real estate described in their petition situate in St. Francois county, Missouri, viz., the north half of the southwest quarter and the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of section 13, township 38, range 5. There was a second count in ejectment, alleging that defendants were in possession. Judgment going for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Plaintiffs claim title as widow and heirs of James F. Adams and by quitclaim from the heirs of John B. Adams and by adverse possession which, they say, ripened into title as against the whole world. On the other hand the defendant James H. Gossom admits possession in himself and claims title through certain tax proceedings reinforced by a subsequent decree in a suit brought to clear up and perfect the title acquired at the tax sale. The defendant Doe Run Lead Company claims a two-year option to buy Gossom's title on condition that it prove perfect. It alleges by its answer that it was not a proper party to the suit, "has no interest in the title," and asks to be discharged from "further litigation."
In the answer of Gossom and wife it is alleged, inter alia, that plaintiffs by long continued silence and failure to assert their claims and give the defendants any notice of it, either actual or constructive, have been guilty of gross negligence and laches and have estopped themselves.
Any other facts necessary to the determination of the case will appear in the body of the opinion.
I. The original abstract made no showing of a record entry of the filing of the bill of exceptions. Respondents filed a counter abstract, showing no entry was made. At a former term we granted leave to appellants to apply nisi for such nunc pro tunc order, if the data existed warranting it. Acting on the leave, a successful application on that score was made below, and the supplied entry was brought here by an additional abstract by appellants. Respondents make the point that, absent a record entry showing the filing of a bill of exceptions, there are no exceptions to review. But whatever merit at one time in that view is now gone. Sufficient record has been supplied in a way according with the practice of the courts. [Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390; Reed v. Colp, 213 Mo. 577, 112 S.W. 255 et seq.] We rule, therefore, that the case is here on its merits.
II. Plaintiffs' title runs as follows:
(a). A warranty deed from Joseph Stay and wife, of date October 5, 1864, to John B. Adams, conveying the land in dispute, consideration $ 250, duly acknowledged. This deed was not recorded until July 3, 1905, in St. Francois county.
(b). A quitclaim deed, of date April 21, 1905, from the heirs of John B. Adams to appellants, conveying the premises in consideration of one dollar. This deed was recorded in St. Francois county on the same date as a, and was acknowledged in Massachusetts where grantors resided.
(c). A warranty deed from William Lambourne and wife to Joseph Stay, recorded on April 30, 1864, acknowledged on May 20, 1862, conveying the premises. Consideration $ 190.
(d). The record of a patent from the United States government conveying the land to John Nash, dated in 1859, and recorded in 1864.
Oral testimony, practically undisputed, tended to show that John B. Adams resided at Springfield, Massachusetts, and died in 1894, intestate; that his widow is dead; that John B. was a brother of James F. Adams who formerly lived in St. Francois county, Missouri, at Valley Mines; that the grantors in b were the only heirs of John B.; that James F Adams in 1864 lived in North St. Louis; that in that year he bought with his own money the land in dispute from Joseph Stay and took warranty deed a in the name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial