Sugg v. Duncan

Citation142 S.W. 321,238 Mo. 422
PartiesKATE SUGG, Appellant, v. JOHN E. DUNCAN et al
Decision Date19 December 1911
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. -- Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Affirmed.

J. R Brewer for appellant.

Where the record owner is sued for taxes on the land and judgment is rendered against him and after this judgment is rendered a deed is filed for record from the judgment defendant to a third party and after this deed is filed for record the land is sold under the judgment, the purchaser at the sale for taxes is the owner of the land or acquires the title to it although such deed was made before the suit for taxes was filed. Hilton v. Smith, 134 Mo. 499; Kane v Railroad, 112 Mo. 38; Schnitger v. Rankin, 192 Mo. 35; Land & Lumber Co. v. Bippus, 200 Mo. 688.

C. G. Shepard and Duncan & Bragg for respondents.

The purchaser at the tax sale acquired no interest in the land in question, because Sipes had parted with his interest in and to said lands many months prior to the filing of said tax suit, and the deed conveying Sipes's interest was made a matter of record eight months and twenty-one days before the date of the sale of the interest of Sipes in said land, and Sipes having previously conveyed his interest by deed properly made a matter of record, the purchaser at the tax sale took only such interest as Sipes had. Sipes having no interest to be conveyed, the purchaser at the tax sale acquired no interest at said sale. Davis v. Owenby, 14 Mo. 170; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404; Wilcox v. Phillips, 199 Mo. 288; Machine Works v. Bowers, 200 Mo. 231. In making sales under tax judgments the sheriff sells only the right, title, and interest of the judgment debtor, and in the case at bar the judgment debtor having parted with all interest in the land in question by deed duly made a matter of record, the purchaser at the execution sale took nothing by his deed, as he was a purchaser with notice. Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 96.

ROY, C. Bond, C. (sitting in Division Two when this case was argued), concurs.

OPINION

ROY, C. --

This is another of the numerous suits brought to quiet title under section 2535, Revised Statutes 1909, being section 650 of the revision of 1899, amended. There was a judgment and decree for the defendants and the plaintiff has appealed.

The petition is in the ordinary form; and the answer admits that defendants claim the land, and alleges that they are the owners of the land, and pleads estoppel and laches. It is admitted that John M. Sipes is the common source of title.

We will state the facts in the derivation of the two branches of the title in chronological order. On March 30, 1889, Sipes conveyed the land by general warranty deed to Joseph A. and Lucy S. Titcomb. A tax suit was begun against Sipes as defendant and owner of the land, returnable to the September term, 1889. The record before us does not show the date of the institution of that suit, or the date of the order of publication against Sipes as a non-resident. The terms of the Pemiscot Circuit Court were then held on the second Mondays in March and September, so that it is possible, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the suit was begun prior to March 30, 1889, the date of the deed to the Titcombs. We cannot, however, presume that such was the case; and, for the purpose of this case, we will presume that the suit was begun after that date.

The judgment in the tax suit was rendered September 10, 1889, for $ 9.60 taxes. The total costs at the time of the judgment were $ 19.99. The execution was issued December 10, 1889, returnable to the March term, 1890. On January 9, 1890, the deed from Sipes to the Titcombs was filed for record. The sale was made under the execution on September 3, 1890, there having been no March term, 1890, of the court. The sheriff's deed to F. D. Morris was dated September 30, 1890, and acknowledged June 8, 1891, and filed for record March 20, 1894. Fred D. Morris conveyed to Kate W. Sugg by deed dated December 6, 1895, and filed for record on the same day. J. A. Titcomb and wife, Lucy S., conveyed to C. E. Bragg and J. E. Duncan, two of the defendants, by deed dated September 13, 1905, and filed for record September 13, 1905.

OPINION.

I. The statute requires that suits to enforce the lien for taxes on land shall be brought "against the owner of the property." It says nothing about the "record owner," leaving the question of the force and effect of the deed records to be determined by the law outside of that statute.

Such being the case, the collector and the purchaser at the tax sale are governed by sections 2810 and 2811 of the Revised Statutes, which affect them with notice of recorded deeds, and protect them against the existence of an unrecorded deed in the absence of actual notice thereof on their part.

We are not called on to say what would be the effect of a deed made by the record owner after the beginning of a suit against him for the taxes. In this case the deed antedated the institution of the suit and was placed on record after the rendition of the judgment and before the sale under the execution for taxes.

Such being the case, both the collector and the purchaser at the sale under the execution were from the time of the filing for record of the deed to the Titcombs constructively and effectively notified that the land had been conveyed to the Titcombs prior to the beginning of the suit. There is no law anywhere protecting them from such a result.

In Hannah v. Davis, 112 Mo. 599, 607, 20 S.W. 686, the court said: "In Davis v. Owenby, 14 Mo. 170, this court held that a valid deed made before judgment, but afterwards recorded before sale on execution, carried title against a purchaser at the execution sale. That opinion has been so long accepted that we decline to re-examine the rule it states. [Parks v. Bank, 97 Mo. 130, 133, 11 S.W. 41.] By an attachment no greater estates or interests in land are reached than by a judgment. So that plaintiff's position is not improved by reason...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT