Brown v. Baxter

Decision Date11 January 1908
Docket Number15,317
Citation94 P. 155,77 Kan. 97
PartiesC. O. F. BROWN v. E. BAXTER et al
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Decided January, 1908. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Error from Marion district court; OSCAR L. MOORE, judge.

STATEMENT.

THIS is a suit by E. Baxter to recover judgment upon a promissory note and to foreclose a real-estate mortgage given to secure the same. The suit was commenced in the district court of Marion county June 20, 1906.

The petition states fully the facts constituting plaintiff's cause of action. The separate answer of the plaintiff in error admits the execution of the note and mortgage but denies generally the other allegations of the petition. This part of the answer is verified. There is also a plea of the statute of limitations. The reply denies that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. Upon these issues the case was tried to the court without a jury. Special findings of fact were filed by the court, which except immaterial parts, read:

"(1) On March 10, 1890, the defendants Louisa L. Baker and Robert H. Baker, her husband, executed and delivered to the defendant A. Jacobitz their promissory note in the sum of seven hundred dollars ($ 700), due and payable on the 10th day of March, 1893, with twelve per cent. (12%) interest after maturity.

"(2) That to secure the payment of the above-described note the said Louisa L. Baker and Robert H. Baker, her husband executed and delivered to the said A. Jacobitz, the defendant herein, their certain real-state mortgage, dated the same date as the note, March 10, 1890, upon the following-described real estate . . . in Marion county Kansas, which said real-estate mortgage was recorded in the office of the register of deeds of Marion county, Kansas, on March 12, 1890.

"(3) That afterward, and within three years from the date of said promissory note, the said A. Jacobitz, for a valuable consideration, and before the maturity of said note, sold, assigned and delivered the said promissory note and mortgage to John Buchanan by written indorsement indorsed on said promissory note.

"(4) That on the 4th day of March, 1895, the said John Buchanan died intestate, leaving the following-named heirs, to wit: Mary Jane Buchanan, widow; William H. Buchanan, son; Samuel Buchanan, son; Nancy B. Vosbinder, daughter; four children of Susannah Rutledge, daughter, deceased, to wit: Charles Rutledge, Mary Rutledge, Ross Rutledge and Ira Lee Rutledge; John N. Buchanan, son. The said Ira Lee Rutledge being a minor at said time.

"(5) That prior to the death of said John Buchanan he had loaned, upon real-estate securities, sixteen hundred dollars ($ 1600) of his wife's money, and the said John Buchanan had taken the securities for said loans in his own name, and at the time of his death the said $ 1600 which the said John Buchanan had loaned for and in behalf of his wife had not been returned to his said wife, Mary Jane Buchanan, nor had she any securities therefor.

"(6) On March 30, 1895, all of the above-named heirs of John Buchanan, for the purpose of settling up and distributing the estate of John Buchanan without the expense of administration, met and organized themselves as the heirs of John Buchanan, deceased. They elected a chairman, president and secretary, and kept a record of the proceedings of such organization of heirs. They appointed one Samuel Buchanan as the agent and representative of such heirs to make due and proper settlement of the estate, subject to the approval of the heirs themselves. The said Samuel Buchanan, as representative and agent of said heirs, collected all of the assets of said estate and paid all of the debts owing by the said John Buchanan at the time of his death, which debts were of a very insignificant amount. And the said organization of heirs held meetings from time to time, up to and including December 16, 1898; at the meeting of the said heirs all of the heirs were represented, either in person or by their duly qualified guardian or authorized agents.

"(7) That at one of the meetings of the said organization of heirs of the said John Buchanan it was mutually agreed and ordered that in consideration of the said $ 1600 of money belonging to the widow, Mary Jane Buchanan, which had been loaned upon real estate prior to John Buchanan's death, and was a part of her distributive share of said estate, said above-described promissory note of seven hundred dollars ($ 700), signed by Louisa L. Baker and Robert H. Baker, her husband, and secured by the mortgage as above described, together with other notes and mortgages belonging to the estate of John Buchanan, should be turned over and become the property of the said Mary Jane Buchanan, widow of the said John Buchanan, deceased, and the same was, about April 9, 1895, thus turned over and delivered to the said Mary Jane Buchanan as her individual property.

"(8) That on or about the 9th day of March, 1905, the said Mary Jane Buchanan for a valuable consideration sold and delivered said promissory note and mortgage, above described, to the said E. Baxter, plaintiff in this action.

"(9) That on the 17th day of November, 1893, the said mortgagors, Louisa L. Baker and Robert H. Baker, her husband, for a valuable consideration, executed and delivered to one C. E. Malcomb their deed, and thereby conveyed to the said C. E. Malcomb the real estate described in the said mortgage sought to be foreclosed in this action, and said deed was made subject to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed in this action.

"(10) That on the 31st day of August, 1895, the said C. E. Malcomb and wife deeded the said above-described real estate included in said mortgage to the defendant A. Jacobitz; said conveyance was made subject to the mortgage sought to be foreclosed in this action.

"(11) That said defendant A. Jacobitz, on the 20th day of March, 1902, made, executed and delivered to said defendant C. O. F. Brown, cashier, a warranty deed for said lots. . . . The defendant C. O. F. Brown, at the time of the execution and delivery of said deed, was cashier of the said Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of Cadiz, Ohio; . . . said deed was given by said defendant A. Jacobitz to said defendant C. O. F. Brown, cashier, as security for the payment of an indebtedness due from said defendant A. Jacobitz to the said Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of Cadiz, Ohio, and is and was intended to be a mortgage on said property by said parties. Subsequently, on March 1, 1906, A. Jacobitz conveyed by quitclaim deed all his right, title and interest in said lots to the defendant C. O. F. Brown, cashier.

"(12) That the said Louisa L. Baker and Robert H. Baker, her husband, paid to the said John Buchanan the annual interest due upon said note and mortgage prior to the time they deeded the same to C. E. Malcomb.

"(13) That some person paid to the said John Buchanan all annual payments of interest that became due after the said Malcomb received the title to said land and prior to the death of John Buchanan, on March 4, 1895.

"(14) That subsequent to the death of the said John Buchanan, on March 4, 1895, and up to and including the year 1903, the said A. Jacobitz paid to the said Mary Jane Buchanan . . . the annual interest due upon said mortgage . . . each year.

"(15) Subsequent to the indorsement of the promissory note and mortgage to the plaintiff, E. Baxter, in March, 1905, by Mary Jane Buchanan, the question of the legal title of the said E. Baxter to the said promissory note having come up, for the purpose of perfecting the title of the said E. Baxter to the said promissory note and mortgage, on the 28th day of April, 1906, one Samuel Buchanan, a son and heir at law of the said John Buchanan, deceased, was by the probate court of Carroll county, in the state of Ohio, duly appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of John Buchanan, deceased, and letters of administration, authorized by law, were duly issued to him as such administrator.

"(16) That on the 28th day of April, 1906, the said probate court of Carroll county, state of Ohio, made and entered of record the following order and judgment in the matter of the estate of said John Buchanan, deceased, to wit:

"'IN PROBATE COURT.

"'State of Ohio, Carroll County, SS.

"'On this 28th day of April, A. D. 1906, it appearing upon the application of Samuel Buchanan, administrator of the estate of John Buchanan, deceased, that all of the debts of said estate have been paid and that there remains in his hands a certain note belonging to said estate, and that it is the desire of the persons interested in said estate that the same be distributed in kind to Mary Jane Buchanan, widow of said John Buchanan, deceased, and that she be permitted to retain all payments of principal and interest made to her on said note and indorsed thereon, commencing on March 10, 1895, and subsequent to that date, as a part of her interest in said estate, and it appearing that such distribution is with the consent and agreement of the heirs and widow of said John Buchanan, deceased, made in April, 1895, it is ordered that said administrator distribute the said note to said widow of said decedent, and permit her to retain all payments, of interest and principal paid to her on March 10, 1895, and subsequent thereto, of which said note the following is a copy, with all credits and indorsements thereon, to wit: [Here follows copy.]'

"And thereupon said administrator filed his report in the foregoing matter, in words and figures as follows, to wit:

"'In Probate Court of the County of Carroll, State of Ohio:

"'In the matter of the estate of John Buchanan, deceased.

"'In pursuance of the order of said court, in relation to the distribution of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Febrero 1946
    ...State ex rel. Gott v. Fidelity & Dep. Co., 317 Mo. 1078, 298 S.W. 83; McVeigh v. Trust Company, 140 Kan. 79, 34 P.2d 571; Brown v. Baxter, 77 Kan. 97, 94 P. 155; In re Mills' Estate, 349 Mo. 611, 162 S.W.2d 807; Scott v. Royston, 223 Mo. 568, 123 S.W. 454; Bank v. Hoppe, 132 Mo.App. 449; In......
  • Brent v. McDonald
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 13 Julio 1956
    ... ... freely and fairly entered into, and, when so made, are given a liberal construction and should not be disturbed by those who entered into them, Brown v. Baxter, 77 Kan. 97, 94 P. 155, ... Page 405 ... 574; Riffe v. Walton, 105 Kan. 227, 182 P. 640, 6 A.L.R. 549; Babst v. Babst, 130 Kan. 826, ... ...
  • Miami County Nat. Bank of Paola, Kan. v. Bancroft
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 17 Julio 1941
    ...sixth degree, as so computed." This act became effective July 1, 1939, more than five years after the decedent Jones died. In Brown v. Baxter, 77 Kan. 97, 94 P. 155, the Supreme Court of Kansas held that the equitable title to personal property of an intestate descends at once to the heirs,......
  • Brasfield's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 28 Enero 1950
    ...probate courts of this state to appoint administrators does not depend upon the existence of either assets or creditors; Brown v. Baxter, 77 Kan. 97, 94 P. 155, 574, which clearly infers, if it does not actually so hold, that creditors are entitled to have the estates of resident decedents ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT