Scanlan v. Gulick

Decision Date21 November 1906
Citation199 Mo. 449,97 S.W. 884
PartiesSCANLAN v. GULICK.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Phelps County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by John W. Scanlan against Fred W. Gulick. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

W. D. Jones, for appellant. J. B. Harrison, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

Action in ejectment by respondent against appellant to recover a certain tract of land in Phelps county worth about $600 to $1,000. Petition is in the usual form. Answer was first a general denial, and then, in a second count, a specific plea of an outstanding title in one Alexander Weems. Replication, a denial of all new matter in answer. The title passed regularly from the general government to N. A. Wilson and W. I. Letton. On March 3, 1899, Wilson and wife conveyed to appellant, and on February 4th Letton and wife conveyed to appellant, so that on March 3, 1899, appellant had full title. September 11, 1901, appellant and wife executed a deed of trust to J. B. Harrison, trustee for J. W. Scanlan, this respondent, to secure the payment to respondent of a note of $143.74. February 9, 1903, this deed of trust was foreclosed, and respondent became the purchaser of the land and received a trustee's deed therefor, and thereafter he brought this suit. It was admitted that appellant was in possession at the time suit was brought, and the evidence showed that he had been in possession since about March 3, 1899. Respondent, after introducing the abstract of title, showing the title in appellant as stated above, introduced the deed of trust and trustee's deed above mentioned and made proof of monthly rents and profits. The abstract of title was admitted in evidence by agreement in lieu of the instruments of conveyance. This abstract of title, besides showing the two deeds to appellant as aforesaid, did show a deed of trust executed by Alexander Weems and Nancy Weems to John Long, trustee for F. W. Gulick, appellant, to secure the payment of $1,600 note, which deed of trust bears date July 24, 1899, and filed for record November 1, 1899. Respondent likewise proved that appellant had been in possession of the land since he received the two deeds from Wilson and Letton. Appellant then introduced evidence tending to show that prior to the execution of the deed of trust under which respondent purchased he had made a warranty deed to Alexander Weems, and that he had taken the deed of trust for $1,600 above mentioned for the purchase price, which deed of trust or a note secured thereby had been assigned to one S. M. Pickler; that he told respondent of these instruments at the time he gave him his deed of trust; that Alexander Weems was deceased at the date of trial. All this was testified to by appellant; there being no other witness. The cross-examination of appellant was rigid, and directed along lines tending to show that the alleged unrecorded deed to Weems and the deed of trust given back by Weems were fraudulent and without consideration, and that the alleged transfer of the note was fraudulent and without consideration. The testimony given by respondent denied any knowledge of the alleged unrecorded deed to Weems. It was further to the effect that at the time appellant gave him the deed of trust for $143.74 appellant said that he still owned the land, and that the $1,600 deed of trust was placed there in order to give it a fictitious value to help sell the place.

The appellant asked the following declaration of law, which was by the court refused,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Carter v. Carter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1911
    ... ... [141 S.W. 877] ... That finding cannot be inquired into here. [Scalan v. Gulick, ... 199 Mo. 449, 97 S.W. 884.] ...          5. A ... lease from S. E. Carter to one Davis, executed in 1904, ... covering eighty acres ... ...
  • Morgan v. Mulhall
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1908
    ...were given on the issues. Such an instruction standing alone is clearly erroneous. Boyd v. Railroad, 108 Mo.App. 303; Scanlan v. Gulick, 199 Mo. 449. F. Galt for respondent. (1) The petition states a cause of action in that it states a general charge of negligence. Conrad v. De Moncourt, 13......
  • Morgan v. Mulhall
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1908
    ...the jury could be guided to a just verdict on them. Is there merit in this contention? No, because: (a) We are cited to Scanlan v. Gulick, 199 Mo. 449, 97 S. W. 884, as authority for that position. But that case is not in point. In that case a general instruction covering the issues was rig......
  • Carter v. Carter
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 29, 1911
    ...judgment for possession involved a finding that the leases were forfeited. That finding cannot be inquired into here. Scanlan v. Gulick, 199 Mo. 449, 97 S. W. 884. 5. A lease from S. E. Carter to one Davis, executed in 1904, covering 80 acres of the land in suit, was admitted in evidence ov......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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