Black v. Long

• Decision Date: 31 May 1875
• Parties: JAMES W. BLACK and JOSEPH E. BLACK, Appellants, v. WILLIAM LONG and LEONARD BALLOU, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

60 Mo. 181

JAMES W. BLACK and JOSEPH E. BLACK, Appellants,

v.WILLIAM LONG and LEONARD BALLOU, Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1875.

Appeal from Ray Common Pleas.

William A. Donaldson, with J. W. and J. E. Black, for Appellants.

I. Respondent purchased after and subject to the lien of the judgment against Shaw. (Paul vs. Fulton, 25 Mo., 156; Jones vs. Luck, 7 Mo., 551.)

II. The cases of Reed vs. Ownby, etc., have no application because respondent purchased and paid the purchase money after the judgment lien had attached, and his deed shows this to be the fact. (Valentine v. Havener, 20 Mo., 133; Davis vs. Ownby, 14 Mo., 170.)

III. Respondent's possession was not under our registry law notice, either actual or constructive of his claim or title, and appellants were, in fact and law, innocent purchasers without notice.

C. T. Garner, for respondents.

The purchase by appellants at an execution sale cannot prevail over a recorded deed based upon a title bond and valid purchase made long prior to the judgment before the justice, and the filing of the transcript, and followed by actual possession and valuable and lasting improvements (Davis vs. Ownby, 14 Mo., 170; Valentine vs. Havener, 20 Mo., 133); and the possession itself was notice.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an appeal in an action of ejectment where the judgment was rendered for the defendant.

It appears from the record that in the Spring of 1869, one Shaw sold the lots in controversy to Dale and gave him a title bond for a deed. Dale took possession, paid the purchase money and made improvements on the property. He then sold the same to Ballou, the defendant, for a valuable consideration, who went into possession and also made improvements. Dale assigned his title bond to Ballou and by an arrangement between all the parties, Shaw, the vendor, made the deed directly to Ballou. The deed is dated the 3rd day of September, 1870, acknowledged on the same day and filed for record on the 4th day of October, 1870.

On the 6th day of August, 1870, one Martin recovered a judgment before a justice of the peace against Shaw, and on the 18th day of the same month he filed a transcript in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court, from which an execution issued on the 25th of May, 1871; and on the 6th of September next, thereafter, the lots were sold as the property of Shaw and purchased by the plaintiffs.

The single question is, whether, under the facts as developed in this case, the purchaser at the sheriff's sale, under judgment and execution, will take the title against the prior deed executed, delivered and recorded before the day of the sale; although not acknowledged or of record when the judgment was rendered, or what, as in this case, is the same thing, the transcript was filed.

This question must be considered as conclusively decided and put at rest by repeated decisions in this court. (Davis vs. Ownby, 14 Mo., 170; Valentine vs....