Bank of Kentucky v. Poyntzs

• Citation: 60 Mo. 531
• Parties: THE BANK OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants in Error, v. JOHN B. POYNTZ, et als., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

60 Mo. 531

THE BANK OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants in Error,

v.JOHN B. POYNTZ, et als., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Error to Carroll Circuit Court.

Hale & Eads, for Plaintiffs in Error.

I. The balance due from Dawson and his notes to the trustees, are tied up by the Kentucky suit, which was brought prior to and not divested of the jurisdiction by the present one. The decree of the court below compels defendant to pay the money, and leaves his notes outstanding, on which he may be again sued.

II. The court finds there was a lien for the unpaid purchase money retained by the terms of the deed, and the trust estate cannot lose the lien. Hence, the court should not go outside of the issues involved in this suit, and order this payment.

III. The court might have restrained defendant from paying this balance to the old trustees, but could do no more.

IV. If the court found that the defendant was a fraudulent grantee, and that the title to the property could not be reached, then the court might take control of any balance unpaid, and hold it for the creditors. But in this case the court expressly found that the sale was fair, and that the balance due is well secured by a lien.

Ray & Ray, for Defendants in Error.

I. A judgment in a foreign country touching lands will be held of no validity, while a judgment of the “ forum rei sitæ'DD' is held absolutely conclusive. (Sto. Confl. of Laws, 735, § 591, 7th ed.)

II. Under the general prayer for relief, the court may grant such relief as is warranted by the allegation and the proofs, and as may be just and equitable. (Holmes vs. Fresh, 9 Mo., 201; Holland vs. Anderson, 38 Mo., 55; McGlothlin vs. Hemery, 44 Mo., 350; Keeton vs. Srpadling, 13 Mo., 322; 1 Sto. Eq., 468, § 439, 4th ed.; McNair vs. Biddle, 8 Mo., 257.) The fact that upon the trial of the issue, between plaintiff and defendant Dawson, in reference to the validity of said sale, the issue was found for said defendant, does not make it inequitable, or preclude the court from securing to the beneficiaries, by appropriate order, the balance of the proceeds.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case is as to the propriety of the final decree of the Circuit Court. There is no controversy about the facts and the evidence at the hearing is not therefore preserved in the record.

All the parties, plaintiffs and defendants, are non-residents. About the year 1855, a mercantile house in Kentucky failed in business, and were debtors in a large sum to the plaintiffs and other creditors, and made a deed of trust of all their property, consisting of lands in Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi and other States to two of the defendants named Poyntz, for the benefit of their creditors, giving said trustees power to sell said lands and apply the proceeds in a mode directed by the deed. About three thousand acres of this land were in Carroll County, Missouri, and the trustees sold and conveyed to Dawson, one of the defendants, about two thousand acres of this land in Carroll County for $10,000, one-half of the purchase money being paid at the date of the sale, and Dawson's notes, payable in one and two years, taken for the remainder.

The object of this petition in the Circuit Court of Carroll County was, to secure these lands in Carroll County that were unsold, to the creditors, and to set aside the sale and deed to Dawson, upon allegations of the general unfitness and unfaithfulness of the trustees.

The trustees were made parties defendant, and served by publication, and an interlocutory decree was made against them, which, however, they subsequently moved to set aside. And this interlocutory decree was set aside, and they were allowed to answer at a time fixed by the court; but there was no answer on their part and the decree was ultimately made final as to them.

Dawson, who had purchased a portion of these lands, filed his answer, denying all the allegations of the bill, so far as they affected his purchase, and the court found in his favor, on the testimony (not reported,) and confirmed his title; but the court in its final decree, displaced the trustees, as had already been done in the interlocutory decree, and ordered Dawson to pay over to the sheriff the...