Bedford v. Moore

• Decision Date: 31 October 1873
• Citation: 54 Mo. 448
• Parties: LOUISIANA BEDFORD, Appellant, v. JAMES L. MOORE AND JOSEPH C. MOORE, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

54 Mo. 448

LOUISIANA BEDFORD, Appellant,

v.JAMES L. MOORE AND JOSEPH C. MOORE, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1873.

Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court.

Louis Houck, for Appellant.

Glover & Shepley, for Respondents.

ADAMS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition sets out that the plaintiff is the widow of one Alfred M. Bedford, deceased; that in his life-time the said Bedford owned certain real estate, being the east half of the south-east quarter of section 6, township 26, north range 16 east; that he mortgaged this property, and that defendants became the holders of that mortgage by assignment; that by decree of the Mississippi Circuit Court the equity of redemption of said Alfred in said real estate was foreclosed, but at the time of said purchase it was understood by said Alfred and defendants that the said foreclosure should not debar the said Alfred, his heirs or assigns, from redeeming said real estate, by the payment of the mortgage money and interest and costs, and that with that understanding the said real estate was sold under said decree, and that defendants became the purchasers for $500, being about the one-sixth part of the real value of said real estate; and that the said realty would not have sold for such an inadequate price, but for the fact th defendants on the day of sale publicly proclaimed, that if the became the purchasers of said realty, the said Alfred sho have the right to redeem the same on payment of the amount due on mortgage.

The petition further states, that said Alfred died in January, 1870; and that he did not redeem in his life-time; that since his death, plaintiff being entitled to dower and homestead in said realty, paid the amount due on said mortgage, with interest and costs, and in addition to that, another large debt of said Alfred, to redeem said land and discharge it from all liens and incumbrances whatsoever due to defendants; and that the defendants, although paid in full, have refused to reconvey said real estate; wherefore the plaintiff prays, that they may be compelled so to do.

The defendants deny every allegation of the petition, and set up that on or about the 29th day of November, 1865, during the life-time of said Bedford, by virtue of several executions, all the interest of said Bedford in said land was sold to one George Whitcomb. The defendants in their answer further state, that on the 22nd day of May, 1868, the equity of said realty was sold to George Whitcomb by virtue of a decree of foreclosure obtained in the Mississippi County Court, and that Alfred M. Bedford owned no equity of redemption, and had no right to redeem the said realty. And further defendants say, that the plaintiff has long since relinquished her right of dower and all other right or title she ever had or held in or unto said land, except seventy acres which defendants conveyed to her. And James L. Moore for himself says, that he never at any time had a conversation with Alfred M. Bedford, in regard to the said land. And in conclusion, the defendants say, that they admit that the amount of money in the petition specified was paid, but deny that it was paid for redemption, but that it was paid upon another consideration, that it was paid as the purchase price.

In her replication, the plaintiff denies all the allegations of the answer.

At the May Term, 1873, this cause was tried. At the trial Louisiana Bedford introduced herself as a witness and testified, that it was always her understanding that by paying the money she should have the land--that she saw Mr. Joseph C. Moore in regard to the redemption of the land, and that he asked her if she could not by some means hold on to the land, and that she told him that she had no means except some swamp land --that at no time did Mr. Moore intimate that he intended to hold on or keep a part of the land--that she always understood that if she paid the money she should have all the land back. On cross-examination she says that she does not remember that Jos. C. Moore t d her, that she, her husband and Mr. George Whitcomb had conveyed to Mr. Thomas Allen one-fourth of the south 40 acres, excepting the house, but says that she remembers that to be a fact, that she does not remember that Jos. C. Moore, in any conversation with her expressed a desire to hold back a part of the land; that at the time she talked to Jos. C. Moore at his office, James L. Moore was there, and taking part in the conversation; that she did not have possession of the money that was paid to the Moores, that Mr. Patterson acted as her agent and attorney; that she has an interest in this suit; that the suit is prosecuted for her benefit; that she expected to get all the land when the money was paid; but that it came different; that she never promised Mr. Deal to convey the one-fourth in dispute to Mr. Deal or any one; that she never had a conversation with Mr. Deal about the matter.

H. J. Deal then testified that he was at the sale, when the land in controversy was sold, that he made one bid, and that Jos. C. Moore told him that the matter was understood between him and Mr. Bedford, and that he thinks Mr. Moore told him not to bid, that he was going to let Mr. Bedford have the land back, and that after that statement he bid no more; that the land sold for $500, and was worth some $4,000 or $5,000, and that would be a fair valuation. On cross-examination he said, that Thomas Allen paid 3,300 dollars for the property; that when the sale was going on he put in a bid to clog the thing, in order to get time to investigate; that he cannot state exactly what Jos. C. Moore said, but that he did say that he was buying the property in for Mr. Bedford, with a privilege in him to redeem, and for him not to bid; that he has an interest in the result of the suit; that Thomas Allen furnished the money to redeem; that Thomas Allen and he furnished the money to get a part of the land; that Mrs. Bedford has an interest in this suit; that if she does not make a deed to us as she agreed, we will hold her for damages; that she gave a bond for the entire land.

Wm. H. Sherman testifies that he was present when the land was sold, that he made two bids, but made no other bid from some information that he got from Jos. C. Moore; that he asked whether the property by the sale would pass into other hands, and that he understood that it would not; that he cannot give the exact words; that the land sold for $565, that it is worth $3,000; that what Mr. Moore told him deterred witness from bidding any further on the day of sale, and that Moore told him that if there had been a general bidding he would have withdrawn a part of the land; that the land was sold in a lump. On cross-examination he said, that he made bids after the conversation, and that he was deterred from bidding from what Moore said more particularly.

W. P. Swank testified, that he was at the sale; that at the sale Moore said that whenever Alfred M. Bedford paid the money he would get his land back; that he thinks this was at the time of sale; that the land is worth $50 per acre exclusive of the Bedford dwelling house, and that the house is worth $1,500. On cross-examination he said that the conversation was on the day of sale, and that his understanding was, that whenever Bedford paid the amount of the mortgage he was to have his land back.

James L. Patterson testified that he knew the Moores and Bedford; that he knew the land; that it is the homestead tract; that for the purpose of redeeming this homestead tract he paid $3,200 or $3,300 to Jos. C. Moore for Mrs. Bedford; that Mr. Moore handed him a deed for all the land except about 10 acres; that he paid the money to redeem the entirety of the land; Mrs. Louisiana Bedford is the widow of Alfred M. Bedford, and the land in controversy...