Yeoman v. Younger

• Decision Date: 31 October 1884
• Citation: 83 Mo. 424
• Parties: YEOMAN, Appellant, v. YOUNGER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 Mo. 424

YEOMAN, Appellant,

v.YOUNGER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1884.

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--HON. M. G. MCGREGOR, Judge.

REVERSED.

Henry Brumback for appellant.

J. C. Cravens, and W. C. Price for respondents.

RAY, J.

This is an action of ejectment, for eighty acres of land in Lawrence county. The petition was filed August 30, 1881, and is in the usual statutory form. The answer is a special denial and contains further the allegations that defendants were at date of suit and are the legal owners in fee of the land in dispute and rightfully in possession thereof. It was agreed that defendant, Younger, is the common source of title. The case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury.

It appears from the record that the respondent, Wm. H. Younger, who was the guardian and curator of Ephraim Woodrow, made application for a final settlement of his accounts with said ward at the November term, 1866, of the probate court, and that at the July term, 1867, which was the first regular term after the expiration of the three months during which said exhibit was required to remain on file for the examination of parties interested, said guardian appeared in person and said ward by attorney, and by consent of parties the said application for final settlement and the objections of said ward thereto which had been previously filed, were taken up and the probate court, upon an examination of the accounts and the witnesses, found the exhibit incorrect and that the balance due by said guardian to said ward instead of being the sum of $245.50, as claimed by said guardian, was the sum of $3,438.95, which last sum the court ordered to be paid over. Thereupon said Younger took his appeal to the circuit court of Lawrence county, whence the venue of said cause was changed, on his application, to the circuit court of Greene county, where upon a trial anew the following finding and judgment was on August 19, 1871, had and entered in said cause:

“ Ephraim Woodrow, plaintiff, v. Wm. H. H. Younger, defendant.

Judgment on report of referee.

Now, at this day comes on this cause to be heard on the exceptions filed by the defendant on the 27th day of May, 1870, and the 12th of December, 1871, to the report of the referee herein, and after hearing the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff and defendant on said exceptions and the report of the referee, it is adjudged, considered and decreed by the court that said exceptions be not allowed, but the same are overruled, and that the report of the referee herein, in all things, be approved and confirmed, and it appearing to the court from said report that on the 11th day of May, 1871, the said defendant was indebted to the plaintiff as his late curator in the sum of two thousand two hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy-seven cents for debt. It is therefore considered by the court that plaintiff have and recover of and from said defendant the said sum of two thousand, two hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy-seven cents for debt, and the further sum of one hundred and thirty-three dollars for interest from the 11th day of May, 1871, aforesaid, and that this judgment bear interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum.”

Said judgment was assigned by said Woodrow to Wm. Yeoman, the plaintiff on March 5, 1879, and a general execution issued thereon June 24, 1879, directed to the sheriff of Lawrence county, who levied upon and sold thereunder the interest of said Younger in the real estate in suit and made to this plaintiff, who was the purchaser at said sale, a deed therefor, dated March 21, 1880, and filed for record August 2, 1881. The plaintiff's claim to said land was under and by virtue of said deed. As will be seen by the court's action upon the declarations of law asked by the parties, the case was made to turn upon the validity of said judgment, and whether it would authorize and support an execution, and we, therefore, deem any further statement of the evidence unnecessary and immaterial.

The court refused to give for the plaintiff the follow-lowing declarations of law:

1. The sheriff's deed to plaintiff read in evidence, passed to plaintiff all the title of the defendant, Younger, in the real estate therein described, and if the defendant was in possession of the premises sued for at the time of the levy thereon of the execution recited in such deed, and was also in such possession at the institution of this suit, then plaintiff is entitled to recover.

4. If the case of Woodrow against Younger originated in the probate court of Lawrence county, on the exhibit of said Younger for final settlement as guardian of said Woodrow and the exceptions of said ward thereto, and was taken by appeal to the circuit court of Lawrence county, and thence by change of venue to the circuit court of Greene county, and both parties appeared to such action in all such courts, then the latter court had jurisdiction to finally determine the matter of such guardianship accounts, and jurisdiction of the person of said Younger in that behalf, and the final judgment of said court thereon, referred to in said sheriff's deed and which has been read in evidence, is valid and cannot be attacked collaterally in this action, for any errors or irregularities therein, if any, or for the reason that such judgment is different, if so in...