Harper v. Mansfield

• Citation: 58 Mo. 17
• Parties: WM. HARPER, et al., Respondents, v. WM. C. MANSFIELD, et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

58 Mo. 17

WM. HARPER, et al., Respondents,

v.WM. C. MANSFIELD, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court.

Ira Hall, for Appellants.

I. Defendant, Mansfield, had the right to purchase the land at the sale. He was not trustee for the sale of the land. The rule that a trustee cannot purchase at his own sale of property of which he is trustee, has no application to him. The rule is that the trustee cannot purchase from himself. He cannot sustain the two characters of purchaser and seller. But defendant, Mansfield, was in no way connected with the trust nor had any control or direction of the sale. (Hill Trust., § 535, [3rd Ed.]; 2 Wash. Real Prop., [2nd Ed.] pp. 176, 177, 210; Dempster vs. West, Chic. Leg. News, vol. 6, p. 335; 2 Sugd. Vend., 112, 126, note.)

Craddock & Musick, for Respondents.

I. Defendant, Mansfield, held a fiduciary relation towards the creditors of his intestate, and was under obligation to to look after their interests with the most conscientious scrupulousness. He could not speculate or make a profit at their expense. Any purchase of property of his intestate at a sacrifice would be for their benefit, and when, after such purchase of his intestate's lands, he attempted to take the profits of the purchase to himself and deny the rights of the creditors and his trusteeship for them, it was fraud of the most patent character. (2 Hill. Torts, ch. 26, §§ 1, 2.)

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This proceeding was instituted by the creditors of Thos. B. Mansfield, who died in Oct., 1871, to set aside the sale of the decedent's farm made under a deed of trust given by said Mansfield to secure the purchase money. The plaintiffs were creditors to the amount of six or seven hundred dollars, and their claims had been allowed against the estate and placed in the 5th class.

Mansfield, the decedent, had in Feb'y, 1868, purchased a tract of land lying in Audrain County, near Mexico, of 100 acres, at the price of a thousand dollars, of a lady named Breckenridge, and had obtained a deed for the same and executed his notes for this sum, and to secure them had given a deed of trust on this land, making one Hook, who is one of the defendants in this case, trustee, with authority to sell on non-payment, and on specified notices and at a specified place. Miss Breckenridge was also made a party defendant in this case.

Mansfield paid $200 on those notes in 1870, and died in 1871, and the principal defendant, W. C. Mansfield, his brother, was appointed administrator.

The 100 acres of land mortgaged to pay this indebtedness to Breckenridge, was the only land owned by the deceased, and the personal assets were insufficient to pay off the creditor in the 5th class, after the payment of such claims as had priority and the widow's claim under the statute.

The petition, after stating the above facts, proceeded to charge that the defendant, W. C. Mansfield, for the purpose of defrauding the creditors aforesaid, without the knowledge of Hook, the trustee, and without the consent or request of Breckenridge, the cestui que trust, procured an advertisement in the name of Hook, to be inserted in the newspapers printed at Mexico, offering the said land for sale on the terms, and at the place, and in the mode provided for in the deed of trust; that afterwards, and on the day named in the advertisement, he fraudulently had the same put up for sale at the hour of 11 A. M., and cried off to the highest bidder by an auctioneer named Rodman; that said W. C. Mansfield became the purchaser for one thousand dollars, and fraudulently procured a deed from said trustee, Hook.

All this is charged to have been done by said Mansfield, administrator aforesaid, in order to get the property at an under value; and it is claimed that he paid off the note still due on the mortgage to Breckenridge for $800 by giving his notes to said Breckenridge, and the remainder of his bid by giving a receipt to Hook as administrator for a claim said Hook had against the estate for $108.34, and to secure his notes to Breckenridge, he gave her a deed of trust on the same land, and made said Hook trustee. It is alleged that the land was worth ($2,000) two thousand dollars.

The answer of defendant, W. C. Mansfield, denied all fraud, asserted that he had nothing to do with the sale, except to bid for the land; asserts that the land brought a full price and more than it would at the time of the answer; and avers that he bought the land, not as administrator, but on his own individual account.

The testimony in the case need not be stated in detail. It clearly appears that this sale under the deed of trust to Hook was not made at Hook's instance nor at the instance of the beneficiary, Miss Breckenridge. It seems to have been suggested and arranged by a lawyer named Edwards, perhaps on the direction of his client, the defendant, who was administrator of the estate and who doubtless consulted Edwards on the subject. The year had elapsed since the death of the mortgagor, and the mortgagee or trustee had an undoubted right to sell. It does not appear that the auction was conducted in any way unfairly, nor does it appear that it was sold at an unreasonable hour. It was sold at 12 M. and the deed of trust did not specify any hour of the day when the land was to be sold.

A great many witnesses were examined as to the value of this land, and as usual in such cases, opinions varied very much; but one of the witnesses swore he came to Mexico prepared to bid fifteen hundred dollars for it, and another that he offered defendant, after the sale, five hundred dollars for his bargain, and it may be concluded therefore, that the land was not sold to the best advantage.

The decree of the court was based on a special finding of facts, in substance these. The court finds, in reference to the purchase of decedent, the deed of trust to Hook, and the death of the purchaser, Mansfield, and the appointment of his brother, the defendant, as administrator, and...