Anderson v. Biddle

• Decision Date: 31 March 1846
• Citation: 10 Mo. 23
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ANDERSON & THOMPSON ET AL. v. ANN BIDDLE.

10 Mo. 23

ANDERSON & THOMPSON ET AL.

v.ANN BIDDLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1846.

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

CROCKETT & BRIGGS. for Appellants.

SPALDING, for Appellee. 1. A purchaser of property with notice, at the time of purchase, of another's equity in, or equitable right thereto, takes it subject to the same equity, and acquires no more right therein than the person had from whom he purchased. 2 Story's Eq. 443, § 1201; Davis v. McCloy, 2 Mo. R. 130; 1 Story's Eq. 383, §§ 395-6; ibid, 396, §§ 409-10, and the note at page 398; 2 Story's Eq. 503, § 1257; ibid, 508, § 1264; 1 Johns. Ch. R. 301, notice of an incumbrance stops all further proceedings toward the completion of the purchase or the payment of the money. 7 Johns. Ch. R. 65; 1 Johns. Ch. R. 566. If purchaser has notice of the trust at the time of the purchase, he himself becomes trustee, notwithstanding the consideration paid. 2 Sugden on Vendors, 268-9: “If a purchaser have notice of any claim or incumbrance, his conscience is affected.” It is a general rule, that a purchaser with notice is, in equity, bound to the same extent and in the same manner as the person of whom he purchased. 2 Sugden on Vendors, 274 (top page, 313), notice before actual payment of all the money, though it be secured and the conveyance actually executed, or before the execution of the conveyance, notwithstanding that the money be paid, is equivalent to notice before the contract. 2 Sugden on Vendors, 303, 456. 2. The statute of frauds has nothing to do with the case, it being personal property; but even were it land, it would not have embraced it. Rev. Code of 1835, p. 283-4, §§ 10, 11. Where property is purchased with A.'s money, for A., and the title made to C., the fact may be shown by parol, even under the 10th section of act on Frauds, which is similar to that in New York and England. 1 Johns. Ch. R. 341, 583; 2 Johns. Ch. R. 405; 2 Sugden on Vendors, 135. 3. There is no proof that the complainants trusted Swearingen on the faith of his being the owner of the stock, or that they ever heard of that stock till about the time of the sheriff's levy. They therefore have not been injured by his apparent ownership of it, except so far as the costs of levy; nor is there any proof that he ever got credit anywhere in consequence of that stock, but there is evidence of the contrary. 4. That a levy was made under an execution gives no stronger claim on the property, than if a person had entered into an agreement with Swearingen to purchase it, being ignorant at the time of Mrs. Biddle's claim; and in either case, her rights would be secured by notice before the completion of the purchase by payment of the money and actual conveyance of the property. 2 Dallas' R. 360, is a case of bill for restraining transfer of stock.

NAPTON, J.

This case was a suit in chancery to enjoin the sale of certain stock in the St. Louis Insurance Company, which had been purchased by the complainant in the name and through the agency of J. T. Swearingen, and was taken in execution to satisfy his debts. The plaintiffs in the several executions, the defendant, Swearingen, the Insurance Company, and the sheriff, were made parties defendant to the bill. The complainant alleged in her bill, that she was the owner of the stock levied on, and always had been since the subscription for the same; that the stock was purchased and had remained in the name of the said Swearingen, as a matter of convenience to her at first, but that she had paid all the calls made by the Company, and that the Company through its officers had been apprised of her ownership. That through carelessness and inattention to her business, partly induced by ill-health, the complainant had neglected to have the stock transferred to her, in consequence of which it had been levied on by the creditors of said Swearingen, he (Swearingen) being at the time of such levy totally insolvent. The bill prays an injunction to stay the sale, and that the said Swearingen execute a transfer of said stock, and that the same be entered on the books of the Company. An injunction was accordingly granted. Anderson and Thompson, who were partners, admitted in their answer the execution and proceedings thereon, but denied all knowledge of Mrs. Biddle's interest, and relied upon the want of...