Byrd v. Hall

• Decision Date: 06 May 1912
• Docket Number: 3,659.
• Citation: 196 F. 762
• Parties: BYRD v. HALL et al. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

196 F. 762

BYRD v. HALL et al. ^[1]

No. 3,659.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 6, 1912

Wilson Cramer and R. B. Oliver, Sr., for plaintiff in error.

Martin L. Clardy and Robert A. Anthony, for defendants in error.

Before SANBORN, ADAMS, and CARLAND, Circuit Judges.

CARLAND Circuit Judge.

This is an action of ejectment for section 6, township 16, range 8 Dunklin county, Mo., and for rents and profits. A jury being waived, the cause came on for trial before the court, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants. The trial court, upon the conceded facts, was requested by the plaintiff to declare the law in his favor, which requests being refused, exceptions were taken, and the case is now here on writ of error. The undisputed facts upon which the correctness of the judgment depends, are as follows:

May 24 1871, William S. Sugg, being the owner of 20,000 acres of land in Dunklin county, Mo., including the land in controversy, conveyed the same by warranty deed to his brother, Wylie P. Sugg. William S. Sugg died in the year 1873. In April, 1875, a number of his creditors who had obtained judgments against him brought a suit in equity in the circuit court of Dunklin county, Mo., entitled, 'St Francis Mill Company et al. v. Wylie P. Sugg,' 169 Mo. 136, 69 S.W. 360, to set aside the deed above mentioned, and to subject the real estate therein described to the payment of such judgments, charging that said deed had been made without consideration and in fraud of the creditors of William S. Sugg. Such proceedings were thereafter had in such action that at the August term, 1880, of the circuit court of Dunklin county, a decision was rendered therein declaring said deed of May 24, 1871, fraudulent and void as to the plaintiffs therein as creditors of William S. Sugg. The material part of the decree rendered is as follows:

'At the date of the making of the conveyance in the petition set forth, from William S. Sugg to Wylie P. Sugg, the said William S. Sugg was largely indebted to the plaintiffs and others, and that the conveyance from William S. Sugg to Wylie P. Sugg, bearing date the 24th day of May, A.D. 1871, by which the said William S. Sugg conveyed to the said Wylie P. Sugg the following described real estate (here follows description of some 20,000 acres of land embracing lands described in this cause) was made and contrived by and between the said William S. Sugg and Wylie P. Sugg, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of the said William S. Sugg. It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed that said deed of conveyance be declared fraudulent and void, and that the same be set aside and for naught held as to the plaintiffs herein as creditors of said William S. Sugg, except as to the following land in said deed described, which are, by agreement of the parties herein, excepted and excluded, and said deed is not set aside as to the following described of said lands. (Here follows description of about 3,000 acres excepted.)'

Without following this cause in its subsequent course through the courts of Missouri, it will only be necessary to state that the litigation was finally ended in 1907 by a decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri upholding and sustaining the decree above mentioned, and directing the circuit court for Jefferson county, Mo., to which the venue of the action had been changed, to enter a decree in conformity therewith. The circuit court of Jefferson county on September 19, 1907, obeyed the mandate of the Supreme Court. It does not appear that the plaintiffs in said action ever took any proceedings therein to satisfy their claims out of the land as to which the deed from William S. Sugg to Wylie P. Sugg was held void.

Soon after the decree of 1880 was rendered, Benjamin T. Walker, as administrator of the estate of William S. Sugg, deceased, caused the lands in regard to which the above conveyance had been held void to be inventoried and appraised as required by law as property of his intestate, and presented his petition in due form of law to the probate court of Dunklin county, praying that said lands be sold for the payment of the debts of said deceased. In pursuance of said petition the probate court did, at its June term, 1881, make an order for the sale of said land at public vendue for the satisfaction of said debts, and, in pursuance of said order, said administrator sold on September 14, 1881, to one George Rogers section 6, township 16, range 8, the real estate in controversy.

The Decatur Egg Case Company claims title from George Rogers by mesne conveyances; the defendant George Allen Hall being its tenant in possession of the land. The plaintiff, Byrd, claims title by mesne conveyances from the heirs of Wylie P. Sugg. It will thus be seen that the correctness of the judgment below depends upon the validity of the sale of the land by the probate court of Dunklin county.

The deed from William S. Sugg to Wylie P. Sugg was effective to pass title, and was binding on the grantor, his heirs, executors, and administrators, even if made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Bump on Frdl. Conv. (2d Ed.) Secs. 436, 437, and 438; Stevenson v. Edwards, 98 Mo. 622, 12 S.W. 255; Crook v. Tull, 111 Mo. 283, 20 S.W. 8; Thompson v. Cohen, 127 Mo. 215, 28 S.W. 984, 29 S.W. 885; Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S.W. 545, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 481, 127 Am.St.Rep. 674; Hayes v. Fry, 110 Mo.App. 20, 83 S.W. 772; Knapp v. Knapp, 118 Mo.App. 685, 96 S.W. 295; Brasie v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., 87 Minn. 456, 92 N.W. 340, 67 L.R.A. 865, 94 Am.St.Rep. 709.

In the case of Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 202, 112 S.W. 547, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 481, 127 Am.St.Rep. 674, supra, the court said:

'No rule of law is more firmly established than that the transfer of property in fraud of creditors, while void as to them, is binding on the parties and those in privity with them. The statutes against fraudulent conveyances are designed to protect the interest of creditors, and were not intended in any manner to affect the rights of the parties themselves to the conveyances. This has been the uniform rule of decision in this state since Van Winkle v. McKee, 7 Mo. 435. Doggett v. Ins. Co., 19 Mo. 201; Whitaker v. Whitaker, 157 Mo., loc. cit. 353, 58 S.W. 5; 14 Amer. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) 273, 276, note 3, and cases cited; 20 Cyc. 419, 608.'

William S. Sugg died in the year 1873. Having previously conveyed the land in question by deed duly executed, although it may have been fraudulent as to creditors, he had at the time of his death no title either legal or equitable subject to administration. no part of the estate of deceased grantors, and the probate court has no jurisdiction to order them sold for the payment of debts. George v. Williamson, 26 Mo. 190, 72 Am.Dec. 203; Jackman v. Robinson et al., 64 mo. 289; Hall v. Callahan, 66 Mo. 316, 323; Zoll v. Soper, 75 Mo. 460.

In the case of George v. Williamson, supra, the Supreme Court of Missouri, by Napton, J., says:

'The conveyance of Williamson, however fraudulent against his creditors, was valid against him and his heirs. At his death the land constituted no part of his estate, nor could the administrator, who represented his interests, undertake to set it aside; nor had the county court any jurisdiction over the matter. The sale, therefore, under the order of the county court conveyed no title.'

Counsel for the defendants in error in their brief concede the above propositions. They urge, however, the proposition that although the probate court of Dunklin county would have no jurisdiction to entertain an action for the purpose of setting aside the deed from William S. Sugg to Wylie P. Sugg as being fraudulent as to creditors of William S. Sugg, still, the deed having been avoided by the court having such jurisdiction, the administrator of William S. Sugg could inventory the lands after such deed had been avoided, and sell the same to pay the debts of William S. Sugg. There is a dictum in the case of St. Francis Mill Company v. Sugg, 169 Mo. 136, 69...