Cheney v. Eggert
| Decision Date | 05 November 1917 |
| Citation | 199 S.W. 270,197 Mo.App. 649 |
| Parties | R. F. CHENEY, ZENA CHENEY and EDGAR B. SLOAN, Respondents, v. FRANK EGGERT and G. W. WEBSTER, Appellants |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Adair Circuit Court.--Hon. C. D. Stewart, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judgment reversed and case remanded.
Chas E. Murrell and Campbell & Ellison for appellants.
J. M Wattenbarger and D. C. Payne for respondents.
Plaintiffs in their petition allege that plaintiffs Cheney and wife executed and delivered to defendants a warranty deed by which they conveyed to defendants certain real estate located in Sullivan county, Missouri; that by the terms of said deed defendants assumed and agreed to pay an encumbrance upon the land consisting of a deed of trust securing a note of eleven hundred and fifty ($ 1150) dollars; that defendants subsequently failed to pay said encumbrance and that by reason of such failure the land was sold under the deed of trust, but not bringing an amount sufficient to pay the indebtedness; and that, thereafter, suit was brought against plaintiffs on said note resulting in a judgment which plaintiffs were compelled to and did pay. Plaintiffs ask judgment against the defendants for the amount of such judgment and interest. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried by the court without the aid of a jury. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that they lived in Kirksville, Misouri, and had an agent by the name of Johnson who resided in Milan, Missouri, the county seat of the county in which the land was situated; that they understood that the land was to be deeded to defendants, but not understanding the defendant's names thoroughly, they mailed the warranty deed, containing a provision that the grantees were to assume said encumbrance, to Johnson with instructions for him to fill in the names of the grantees. Thereafter Webster, one of the defendants, came to Johnson's office for the deed and Johnson started to write in the names of defendants as grantees therein but Webster asked him not to do so as he was not advised as to whom he wanted as grantees in the deed. Mr. Johnson delivered the deed to Mr. Webster with the space for the names of the grantees left blank.
There was no evidence as to whether the names of any persons were ever inserted in the deed as grantees, but there was evidence tending to prove that defendants after the delivery of the deed to Webster were in possession of the property mentioned in the deed, exercising ownership thereof and attempting as owners to trade the same. Defendants introduced no evidence.
Defendants claim as there was no evidence that the name of any person was ever inserted in the deed as grantee, the deed is void, and even it is were shown that some name had been inserted as grantee the deed would nevertheless be void for the reason that Johnson was the only authorized agent of the grantors to insert the name, and as he failed to do so no one else had authority so to do.
That a valid deed might be signed, acknowledged and delivered with the name of the grantee left blank, provided there is authority, even oral, in someone to fill in the blank has never been a question in this State since the case of Field v. Stagg, 52 Mo. 534. [Derry v. Fielder, 216 Mo. l. c. 190.]
It needs no citation of authority to establish the fact that a deed for the conveyance of real estate is not a complete deed, and therefore not valid, until the name of the grantee is inserted by a person authorized so to do. However, it has been held that where the grantors in such a deed are insisting upon its validity, and where the party to whom the deed was delivered and at whose request it was left in blank as to the name of the grantee, enters into possession of the land attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial