Briant v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 24 February 1890 |
| Parties | Briant, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jackson et al |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Cass Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jas. B. Gantt, Judge.
Affirmed.
Boggess & Moore for plaintiff in error.
(1) When the defendant Jackson became the administrator of the estate of Jacob Fudge, deceased, the debt of Erwin, on which the judgment was rendered in his favor, under which the lands sought to be affected by this proceeding were sold, vested in him, in trust, for the use and benefit of those entitled thereto, under the laws of this state: First, the creditors second, the heirs-at-law. It was his duty to preserve the trust fund for those so entitled, as aforesaid. Had he bought in said land at the execution sale, as he might have done with said trust funds, and taken title to himself, he would have taken and held the land on and subject to the same trusts as aforesaid. When he caused said real estate to be sold and bought in, in the names of his wife and her brothers and sisters, the heirs-at-law of said Fudge, paid therefor out of and with said trust funds, and caused title to same to be conveyed to them, they took and held said land upon and subject to the same trusts as the said Jackson held said funds -- in trust for the use and benefit of those entitled thereto under the laws of this state: First, for the creditors; and, second, for the heirs-at-law. 1 Pom. Eq secs. 422-473; 2 Pom. Eq., secs. 587, 1049, 1077, 1080; 1 Perry on Trusts [3 Ed.] secs. 127-225; 1 Story's Eq. [12 Ed.] sec. 322, and note; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 251; Allen v. Gillett, 21 F. 273; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. 503; Wolf v. Robinson, 20 Mo. 460; Smith v. Isaac, 12 Mo. 106; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Grumly v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Ray v. Copelin, 47 Mo. 83; Lass v. Sternberg, 50 Mo. 126; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 545; Kitchen v. Railroad, 69 Mo. 260; Hull v. Vorhis, 45 Mo. 555; Durfee v. Moran, 57 Mo. 374; Roberts v. Mosely, 64 Mo. 507; Baker v. Railroad, 86 Mo. 75; Edwards v. Gotschalk, 25 Mo.App. 549; Harper v. Mansfield, 58 Mo. 17; Clark v. Drake, 63 Mo. 354; Meyer v. Jefferson, 5 Mo.App. 250. (2) When the defendants had caused and procured said land to be so sold and bought, and the title vested, as in the previous proposition predicated, they were guilty of at least constructive fraud, from which a resulting trust arose: First, in favor of the creditors; second, in favor of the heirs-at-law. (3) When the said Jackson, the administrator, his wife and the other heirs-at-law, disclaimed that said purchase, and taking title as aforesaid, was in trust as aforesaid, and claimed the land for themselves, they became guilty of fraud in fact, which must, by all the rules of correct reasoning, be held to relate back to the beginning and embrace the whole transaction. (4) Whatever else than as above predicated may be thought of the conduct of the heirs-at-law, in connection with the proposition of fraud in fact, yet, as the administrator and his attorney of record in the case, whose imperative duty it was to preserve the fund in trust for the purpose aforesaid, represented them in the purchase of said land, were derelict in duty, guilty of fraud in law, and probably guilty of fraud in fact, the fraud of the agents must be imputed to the principals.
A. Comingo and Railey & Burney for defendants in error.
(1) Plaintiff charges defendants with actual, intentional fraud in purchasing at sheriff's sale, on the seventh of July, 1876, the land in his petition described. It is not pretended that this charge is supported by the evidence. (2) In the absence of evidence clearly establishing, by direct proof, or reasonable inference, the existence of actual fraud on the part of the defendants, the relief sought cannot be granted. The court below, that heard all the evidence, and saw the witnesses, and was able to judge of their credibility, found that fraud did not exist. The case is one in which this court will, according to established usage, defer, in a great measure, to the finding of the lower court. Dallam v. Renshaw, 22 Mo. 533; Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 38. (3) It is worthy of consideration that plaintiff does not seek to set aside the sale and conveyance to defendants, but asks that they be declared fraudulent as to him, and that they hold the land in trust for the payment of his judgment, rendered nearly two years after their purchase, and of questionable validity until it was affirmed by this court, February 18, 1884, almost eight years subsequent to their purchase. (4) If the price paid for the land was inadequate, plaintiff's remedy, and his only remedy therefor, was by a timely motion to set aside the sale. But even then mere inadequacy of price will not warrant the setting aside of a sale. It must be so grossly inadequate "as to shock the conscience and confound the judgment of common sense." Stewart v. Severance, 43 Mo. 333; S. C., 47 Mo. 366; Phillips v. Stewart, 59 Mo. 491; Osgood v. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. 23. (5) A trust did not grow out of the purchase by the heirs of Fudge, deceased. The sale being public, one at which the present plaintiff and any and all other citizens were at liberty to be present and bid, the conveyance by the sheriff, pursuant thereto, cannot be called in question by any one, certainly not by a mere representative of a creditor of Fudge, deceased. Fudge had no interest in the land at the time of his death, except as a mortgagee. Dillinger v. Kelley, 84 Mo. 561; Johns v. Norris, 22 N.J.Eq. 102-110; Wilson v. Miller, 30 Md. 82-90; Ward v. Smith, 3 Sanf. 592. (6) Not only the heirs of Fudge, deceased, but defendant Jackson, as administrator, had a right to bid for and purchase the land described in the petition. The purchaser, whether heir, administrator or stranger, would acquire an indefeasible title, unless he had been guilty of actual fraud in some way connected with the sale. Ward v. Brown, 87 Mo. 468; Dillinger v. Kelley, 84 Mo. 561; Clark v. Drake, 63 Mo. 354; Price Heirs v. Evans, 26 Mo. 30; Ferris v. Van Vichten, 73 N.Y. 113; Hollingsworth v. Spalding, 54 N.Y. 636; Johns v. Norris, 22 N.J.Eq. 102; Wilson v. Miller, 30 Md. 82-90; Ward v. Smith, 3 Sanf. 592. (7) Defendants deny that plaintiff has suffered any wrong. He had the ability as well as the right to protect himself and the interests of the Hansbrough heirs, which he represented, by attending the sale of July 7, 1876, and bidding on the land; or by enjoining it, or by moving to set it aside, if he then imagined that he or any one else was prejudiced thereby. If he has suffered in this matter, it is because of his own laches, and not by reason of anything done or procured to be done by the heirs of Jacob Fudge. (8) If defendant John L. Jackson, as administrator of the estate of said Jacob Fudge, was guilty of any misconduct -- any act of omission or commission -- whereby plaintiff was injured, he and his securities are liable therefor; and plaintiff's only remedy is by action on his bond as administrator.
-- The plaintiff herein seeks by the present bill to have two certain deeds declared fraudulent as to him, and to have the title and interest of defendants in the lands covered thereby sold to satisfy a judgment in his favor for some $ 4416.57, rendered in April, 1878, against defendant John L. Jackson, as administrator of the estate of one Jacob Fudge, deceased. The first of said deeds of date July 7, 1876, was executed to certain of defendants' children and heirs-at-law of said Jacob Fudge, deceased, by the sheriff of Cass county, under a sale upon execution pursuant to a judgment for $ 11,518.93, rendered by the circuit court, in March, 1876, in favor of defendant Jackson, as administrator of said Jacob Fudge, and against one Newton S. Erwin, on certain notes, executed by said Erwin to said Jacob Fudge, and also for the foreclosure of the mortgage, given by said Erwin on the land described in the present bill, to secure the payment of said notes, in favor of said Jacob Fudge. The other deed referred to is a certain deed of trust on said lands, executed in March, 1878, by said heirs and purchasers at said sheriff's sale, to defendant Hall, as trustee, to secure the payment of two notes in favor of one Thomas Bainbridge for the aggregate sum of eighteen hundred and forty-five dollars.
The present bill charges that said sale by the sheriff under the judgment in favor of one John L. Jackson, as said administrator of the estate of said Jacob Fudge, deceased, and against said Erwin, was made by the order and procurement of said Jackson, administrator, etc.; that at his instance and request and procurement his wife, defendant Martha Jackson, and other designated defendants, children and heirs-at-law of said Jacob Fudge, deceased, became the purchasers of the land at said sale, for the inconsiderable sum of nine hundred dollars, whereas the lands were worth, and would have sold, under fair circumstances, for eight thousand dollars; that said heirs and purchasers paid no consideration for the lands so purchased, but that said John L. Jackson, as such administrator, receipted to the sheriff for the said nine hundred dollars, being the amount of the bid at the sale by the defendant purchasers; that said sum was credited on said execution, and that the lands were bought in, under a fraudulent combination between said Jackson, administrator, etc., and said purchasers, heirs-at-law of said Jacob Fudge, for the fraudulent purpose of delaying and defrauding plaintiff in the collection of his said judgment, debt and demand against the estate of said Jacob Fudge, deceased.
The bill further charges that said purchasers, said John L Jackson, said defendant Hall, and one Bainbridge, with full knowledge of, and in pursuance of,...
To continue reading
Request your trial