Murphy v. Barron

• Citation: 205 S.W. 49,275 Mo. 282
• Parties: JOSEPH MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM N. BARRON
• Decision Date: 05 July 1918
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

205 S.W. 49

275 Mo. 282

JOSEPH MURPHY et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAM N. BARRON

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

July 5, 1918

Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. P. Foard, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

L. M Henson for appellants.

(1) A convict confined in the penitentiary for a term less than life is civilly dead, and when his estate is being attacked by a suit, he can, under the statute, be in court only through a trustee, and no valid judgment affecting his property can be rendered until the trustee has been appointed and brought into court. Secs. 2891 to 2920, R. S. 1909; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 228 Mo. 635. (2) The judgment and proceedings in the case of the Butler County Railroad Company v. Murphy, Barron et al., did not affect the rights of the parties herein as the title to the land in question was not involved in that suit. The only question adjudicated in that case between the parties to this suit was the ownership of one hundred dollars in money. Cox v Barker, 150 Mo. 424; Price v. Blankenship, 144 Mo. 203; Hilton v. City of St. Louis, 129 Mo. 389. (3) Neither of the appellants were parties to the ejectment suit brought by Barron against Baurton, and are not bound thereby. The deed made to Baurton by Murphy was void for the reason that Murphy was civilly dead at the time of its execution. Williams v. Shackelford, 97 Mo. 322. Even if Baurton's deed had been valid, Murphy still held a deed of trust on the land and his interest could not be affected by a judgment against Baurton.

Lew R Thomason for respondent.

(1) A person confined in the penitentiary for a term less than life, under the provisions of Sec. 2891, R. S. 1909, is not civiliter mortuus; his civil rights are simply suspended during the period of incarceration. R. S. 1909, sec. 2891. The civil rights of the convict are not suspended until actually imprisoned in the penitentiary. R. S. 1909, sec. 297; In re Morse, 117 F. 763; Harmon v. Bower, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 502. The actual imprisonment of Murphy did not begin until some time in February, 1903. He was summoned to appear in the tax suit September 16, 1901, ten months before he was first sentenced and seventeen months before his imprisonment began. The court having acquired jurisdiction over the person of Murphy, and having jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action to enforce the lien of the State for delinquent taxes, the judgment rendered in the tax case on the 19th day of June, 1903, was not void. Had Murphy died a natural death after the service of process upon him and before the rendition of judgment against him, even though his personal representative was not made a party to the action or trustee appointed to represent him, the judgment would not have been void, or subject to collateral attack. Coleman v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173; Castleman v. Relf, 50 Mo. 588; Bank v. Walters, 52 Mo. 35; Lewis v. Combs, 60 Mo. 48; William v. Hudson, 93 Mo. 524; Shea v. Shea, 154 Mo. 599; Black on Judgments, sec. 200; Van Fleet on Collateral Attack, sec. 602; State ex rel. Potter v. Riley, 219 Mo. 684; Collins v. Mitchell, 5 Fla., 364; Claflin v. Dunne, 129 Ill. 241; Reid v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 326; Wood v. Watson, 107 N.C. 52; Swasey v. Antrem, 24 Ohio St. 87; Mitchell v. Schonlover, 16 Ore. 217; Giddings v. Steel, 91 Am. Rep. 336; Powell v. Washington, 15 Ala. 803; West v. Jordon, 62 Me. 484; Yaple v. Titus, 41 Pa. St. 195; Pugh v. McCue, 86 Va. 475; King v. Burdett, 57 Am. Rep. 687; Hays v. Shaw, 20 Minn. 405; Beard v. Roth, 35 F. 397; New Orleans v. Gains, 138 U.S. 595. Any attempt to impeach the judgment or decree of the court, in any proceeding not instituted for the express purpose of annulling or vacating said judgment or decree, and not instituted in the time and manner as provided by law, is a collateral attack. Van Fleet on Collateral Attack, secs. 2, to 4; Morill v. Morill, 20 Ore. 96; Thom v. Ireland, 88 Ky. 581; Hope v. Harrison, 84 Tenn. 82; State ex rel. Potter v. Riley, 219 Mo. 684. (2) Circuit courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and when such a court has acquired jurisdiction, however erroneous or irregular its proceedings may be, its judgments are valid and binding until they have been reversed or annuled by suitable proceedings instituted for that purpose. And titles acquired by sales under them, by bona-fide purchasers, will not be affected, even though said judgment should be subsequently set aside. Jones v. Talbot, 9 Mo. 123; Coleman v. McAnulty, 16 Mo. 173; Choteau v. Nuckolls, 20 Mo. 442; Shields v. Powers, 29 Mo. 335; Fithian v. Monks, 43 Mo. 522; Gott v. Powell, 41 Mo. 416; Volger v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577; Johnes v. Hart, 60 Mo. 362; Macklin v. Allenburg, 100 Mo. 337; Shipman v. Smith, 154 Mo. 214; Hefferman v. Ragsdale, 199 Mo. 384; Board of Trustees v. Fry, 199 Mo. 563; Growdy v. Hall, 36 Ill. 313; Gray v. Bernardello, 1 Wall. U.S. 627; Vorhees v. Bank, 10 Pet. U.S. 450. (3) In the case of the Butler County Railroad condemnation proceeding for a part of the lands in controversy, against Murphy and Barron, as defendants, the ownership of the land in controversy was a direct issue upon the pleadings filed. The court found and adjudged Barron to be the owner. This decree was affirmed upon appeal. A question of the law, or fact, is res adjudicata, if it was a material issue in the proceedings, and not merely cognizable or collaterally in question, and was adjudged upon its merits. Van Fleet on former Adjudication, secs. 1 and 2; Mason v. Summers, 24 Mo.App. 174; Young v. Berg, 24 Mo. 590.

BROWN, C. Railey, C., concurs. Bond, P. J., concurs in the result.

OPINION

BROWN, C.

This suit was instituted in the Butler Circuit Court December 5, 1914, by petition containing two counts. The first of these is framed upon the provisions of Section 2535, Revised Statutes 1909, and is, omitting caption and signatures, as follows:

"Plaintiffs, for their cause of action, state that they are the owners of and claim the legal title to the following described real estate, lying, being and situate in the county of Butler, and State of Missouri, to-wit; all of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section Seventeen in Township Twenty-four north, Range Seven east, except a strip 100 feet wide heretofore condemned for railroad right of way.

"That the defendant claims some title, interest and estate in said land, which said title is based and predicated upon a void judgment rendered in the circuit court of Butler County, Missouri, in Tax Suit No. 6486, on the 19th day of June, 1903, and execution sale thereunder, wherein the State of Missouri, at the relation and to the use of John H. Souders, Collector of Revenue in and for the County of Butler and State of Missouri, was plaintiff, and plaintiff Joseph Murphy et al. were defendants.

"Plaintiffs further state that, at the time the judgment above referred to was rendered and at the time the sale thereunder was made, plaintiff Joseph Murphy was incarcerated in the Penitentiary of the State of Missouri, under and by virtue of a judgment and sentence theretofore rendered in the circuit court of said Butler County, Missouri, against him, upon a charge of a felony, which said judgment and sentence was for a term of years less than life imprisonment, and that at the time said tax judgment was rendered and said sale was made, no guardian, trustee, nor legal representative was appointed by the court, nor did any such representative appear on behalf of the said Joseph Murphy in said proceedings.

"Plaintiffs further state that the claim of the defendant is adverse and prejudicial to the title and ownership of these plaintiffs in and to said land.

"Wherefore plaintiffs pray the court to set aside the judgment and sale above mentioned and to cancel the deed and all mesne conveyances made thereunder, and further pray the court to try, ascertain and determine the title of the parties hereto in and to said real estate, and, by its judgment and decree, define said title, and for such other orders in the premises as to the court may seem meet and just.

"And if the court finds that the claim of defendant in and to said real estate is founded upon the invalid tax sale above mentioned and that the defendant has, in good faith, paid any taxes on said land, under and by virtue of said claim, plaintiffs hereby tender the full amount of all of said taxes to the defendant, together with six per cent interest thereon from the dates the same were paid until this time, and hereby offer to pay the same as soon as the amount thereof, if any, is ascertained and determined by this court."

The second count is in the ordinary form in ejectment.

The second amended answer, upon which the cause was tried, sets forth the judgment for taxes pleaded in the first count of the petition, recites personal service of summons on Joseph Murphy, the defendant in that suit and plaintiff in this, on October 7, 1901, returnable to the next October term of the Butler Circuit Court; that on June 19, 1903, judgment was rendered in said cause in the amount of $ 8.97 for taxes and also for the costs of said suit; that on July 31, 1903, special execution issued on this judgment and the land sold thereunder on October 5th to Charles F. Green, by whom it was conveyed on the 10th day of the same month to defendant; that on August 11, 1911, the Butler County Railroad Company began suit against Joseph Murphy, Sarah Murphy, William N. Barron and M. C. Horton to condemn a strip of the land one hundred feet wide for its right of way alleging in its petition that the land was owned by one or another of the defendants in that suit; that the suit proceeded to an award by commissioners of $ 100 damages, which was paid into court for the owner, and the railroad company...