Brown v. Evans
| Decision Date | 05 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 38946.,38946. |
| Citation | 182 S.W.2d 580 |
| Parties | BROWN et ux. v. EVANS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Iron County; Edward T. Eversole, Judge.
Action by W. R. Brown and Audrey Brown, his wife, against Anne M. Evans to determine title to certain lands. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Anne M. Evans, of University City, pro se, for appellant.
Wm. R. Edgar, of Ironton, for respondents.
VAN OSDOL, Commissioner.
This case involves the title to 353.26 acres of land in Reynolds County. An appeal has been perfected from a decree adjudging that plaintiffs are the owners of the land in fee simple; that defendant has no right, title or interest therein; and that defendant has not been in possession of any portion thereof.
The parties, plaintiffs-respondents and defendant-appellant, recognize The Bills, Ewing & Nehf Company, a corporation, as the common source of their claims of title. This corporation conveyed the land by warranty deed, dated May 8, 1931, recorded August 6, 1931, to L. W. Daniels and M. G. Harrison, the grantees assuming and agreeing to pay, as part of the purchase price, the taxes theretofore levied and unpaid. On the same day, May 8, 1931, the grantees (L. W. Daniels and Harrison) executed a deed of trust (recorded August 11, 1931) to E. M. Hunter, trustee, to secure the payment of three notes in the aggregate sum of $4800, Horace L. Ewing, payee and beneficiary. The parties of the first part in this instrument, L. W. Daniels and Harrison, did "by these presents, grant, bargain and sell, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part" the land, the title of which is in controversy. Repondent W. R. Brown became the holder of the notes secured by the deed of trust and at his direction the trustee advertised and sold the land under terms of the deed of trust unto respondents, December 7, 1934, conveying the land to them by trustee's deed executed on that day and recorded January 12, 1935.
A suit for back taxes (delinquent at the time of the warranty deed to L. W. Daniels and Harrison) had been instituted by the collector of revenue of Reynolds County against "Bills, Ewing & Nehf and Frank D. Stout, The Bills, Ewing and Nehf Company, a corporation and all the unknown consorts, heirs, devisees, donees, alienees, or immediate mesne and remote voluntary and involuntary grantees if dead"; judgment was rendered May 27, 1931; and the land sold by the sheriff May 24, 1932, to one L. T. Daniels, the sheriff's deed being recorded October 29, 1932. By warranty deed dated March 25, 1933, recorded March 31, 1933, L. T. Daniels conveyed the land to one Carr, who executed a quitclaim deed to L. W. Daniels, July 31, 1933, recorded August 2, 1933. L. W. Daniels, October 7, 1933, conveyed the land by warranty deed to defendant-appellant, who recorded her deed November 1, 1933.
Appellant relies upon her deed recorded prior to the sale of the land by the trustee of the deed of trust unto respondents; and upon a claim of title by adverse possession. Appellant contends that she purchased the property without notice of the lien of the deed of trust — that the deed of trust was not "in the line of title." Respondents contend that the purchaser at the tax sale had notice that the defendant (The Bills, Ewing & Nehf Company) in the tax suit had theretofore conveyed the property to L. W. Daniels and Harrison, and had notice of the lien of the deed of trust executed by them (we do not find it necessary to review this contention); that appellant was not a purchaser without notice of the lien of the deed of trust; that if it be considered that the tax sale extinguished the lien of the deed of trust, nevertheless the subsequent acquisition of the tax title by L. W. Daniels inured to the benefit of the beneficiary of the deed of trust — the trustee's sale vested title in respondents; and that the evidence does not sustain appellant's claim of title by adverse possession.
It is a very clear, and a well settled principle of equity, that no one should be allowed to gain advantage to himself (against another) through his own neglect of duty (owing to the other). Duffley v. McCaskey, 345 Mo. 550, 134 S.W.2d 62; 126 A.L.R. 853; McCune v. Goodwillie, 204 Mo. 306, 102 S.W. 997; Frank v. Caruthers, 108 Mo. 569, 18 S.W. 927; Vol. 3, Cooley, The Law of Taxation, 4th Ed., § 1437.
Appellant, when she purchased the property from L. W. Daniels, was charged with constructive notice of the contents of the prior instruments, conveying the land, which were recorded. Sections 3426 and 3427, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. §§ 3426 and 3427.
In searching the registry for prior recorded conveyances constituting the line of her vendor's title, appellant must have seen that her vendor, and Harrison, acquired the title from The Bills, Ewing & Nehf Company by an instrument in which they undertook to pay back taxes, and that, May 8, 1931, when and after the deed of trust was executed to secure the debt to Ewing, her vendor L. W. Daniels, and Harrison, grantors of the deed of trust, had title, although a suit to enforce the lien of back taxes was then pending, and consequently had the duty as owners and as mortgagors to pay taxes lawfully levied and assessed against the property.
Further noticing, constructively, the deed of trust and its contents, appellant saw that her vendor (and Harrison) by their deed of trust did "grant, bargain and sell" the land unto Hunter in trust for Ewing, and she knew that by the use of these words her vendor had covenanted that the property was free from encumbrances done and suffered by him or any person under whom he claimed. Section 3407, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 3407. She knew that her vendor had thereby covenanted that the property was free from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kresge Co. v. Shankman
... ... Powell, 256 S.W. 124. (3) Godfrieds purchased with notice of and subject to the driveway easement granted to Kresge by Shankmans' prior lease. Brown v. Evans, 182 S.W. 2d 580; Stoutimore v. Quincy, O. & K.C. Ry. Co., 215 Mo. App. 194, 256 S.W. 121, 28 C.J.S. 711, sec. 48; Missouri Power & Light ... ...
-
Snadon v. Gayer
... ... Melton, 343 Mo. 413, 417, 121 S.W.2d 821, 823(5) (Mo.1938); Utter v. Sidman, 170 Mo. 284, 294, 70 S.W. 702, 705 (1902) ... 11 Brown v. Evans, 182 S.W.2d 580, 583(7) (Mo.1944); Crider v. Meatte, 320 Mo. 474, 485, 7 S.W.2d 691, 695(15) (1928); McVey v. Carr, 159 Mo. 648, 653, 60 ... ...
-
Conran v. Girvin
...S.W. 772, 53 A.L.R. 884, it does not alone constitute evidence of possession. Crider v. Meatte, 320 Mo. 474, 7 S.W.2d 691; Brown v. Evans, Mo.Sup., 182 S.W.2d 580; Pharis v. Jones, 122 Mo. 125, 26 S.W. 1032; McVey v. Carr, 159 Mo. 648, 60 S.W. 1034. The mere payment of taxes does not create......
-
Horton v. Gentry
... ... ten consecutive years, namely: that the possession must be ... hostile; actual; open and notorious; exclusive; continuous ... Welsh v. Brown, 339 Mo. 235, 96 S.W.2d 345; ... Swope v. Ward, 185 Mo. 316, 84 S.W. 895; Hilgert ... v. Werner, 346 Mo 1171, 145 S.W.2d 359; Missouri ... City ... must be actual possession for ten years, and actual ... possession of at least part of the land was indispensable ... Brown v. Evans, 182 S.W.2d 580; Carson v. Lumber ... Co., 270 Mo. 238; Brown v. Chapman, 163 S.W.2d ... 920; Baker v. Thompson, 214 Mo. 500; Huston v ... ...