Cravens v. Jameson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 68 |
| Parties | JOHN K. CRAVENS, Respondent, v. WM. C. JAMESON, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court.
Cline, Jamison & Day, with J. E. Haven, for Appellants.
I. The court erred in admitting the record of the suit between John K. Cravens as plaintiff, and J. C. F. and Cornelia A. Maloney and Wm. P. Allen as defendants in evidence, the appellants not being parties to that record, and because the same was otherwise incompetent as evidence. (Fallon vs. Murray, 16 Mo., 168; Wise vs. Wimer, 23 Mo., 237; State vs. Phillips, 24 Mo., 483; State vs. Ross, 29 Mo., 39; Norcross vs. Hudson, 32 Mo., 227.)
Karnes & Ess, for Respondent.
The only question in the case is as to the ruling of the court in admitting the record of the judgment and decree in the case of Cravens vs. Maloney, to which the defendants in this suit were not parties.
Where a judgment or decree constitutes a link in a chain of title, the record is admissible in evidence, like a deed or any muniment of title, even against strangers to the record; not to establish facts upon which the judgment or decree is based, but that there is such judgment or decree with the legal consequences which follow.
This was a proceeding in the Circuit Court of Jackson County in 1872, to have a cloud removed from plaintiff's title to a small tract of land in the vicinity of Kansas City, which was described in the petition. The plaintiff in his petition asserted a title to the land, though what that title was, and when and how acquired, he did not state.
The petition then stated, that on the 17th of December, 1867, the defendants filed for record, and had entered on the record a deed from one J. C. F. Maloney and Cornelia A. Maloney, his wife, acknowledged before one Baird, a notary public, and purporting to convey to Jamison, as trustee, a tract of land to secure a note signed by Maloney and wife. What land was conveyed by this deed is not stated; but it may be inferred from subsequent proceedings, that the deed conveyed the same land of which the plaintiff claimed the ownership.
The petition then asserts, that at the time said deed of trust was executed, said Cornelia, the wife of Maloney, was holding the legal title to said real estate, and then charges that she never executed said deed, nor acknowledged it in conformity to law. It further charged, that the record of said deed of trust cast a cloud on plaintiff's title. And therefore, the plaintiff asks that said pretended deed of trust may be set aside and held for naught, so far as it affects the title of plaintiff, and that the defendants and all persons claiming under them may be perpetually enjoined from setting up any claims to said real estate by reason of said pretended deed of trust.
The answer to this petition is simply a denial of every allegation asserted by plaintiff, and an assertion of everything denied by plaintiff. The parties went to trial on this state of pleadings. The plaintiffs then introduced a deed from the sheriff of Jackson County, dated June 2, 1871, purporting to convey to plaintiff all the interest of J. C. F. Maloney to the land in controversy. This deed recited a judgment before a justice in 1870, in favor of plaintiff for seventy dollars, against J. C. F. Maloney, and a transcript of said judgment filed in the clerk's office in 1871, and an execution in favor of plaintiff in 1871, and a levy and sale of the real estate in controversy and a purchase by plaintiff.
The plaintiff then read a record of a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, in which plaintiff in this case was the plaintiff, and J. C. F. Maloney, Cornelia A. Maloney and Wm. P. Allen were defendants. In this record, it is averred in the petition, that in 1866, Maloney was largely indebted in the sum of two thousand dollars, and has been ever since; that he was then and ever since has been insolvent; that in March, 1866, and November, 1866, and in March, 1867, Maloney bought several pieces of land from Allen for about $1,800; that being then insolvent, and with a view to hinder and defraud his creditors, he caused said Allen to convey the real estate to his wife, Cornelia A. Maloney; that no part of the purchase money was paid by the wife.
The petition then states that in 1869, said Maloney became indebted to plaintiff in the sum of seventy dollars; that the plaintiff obtained judgment, execution, etc., and ultimately a deed from the sheriff conveying all the interest of said Maloney in said real estate. The prayer is, therefore, that the said several deeds so made by Allen to Mrs. Maloney may be set aside, and that the title and interest of said J. C. F. Maloney be vested in the plaintiff.
There was a judgment by default in this case, of which the record was read in evidence, and a final decree ultimately made, reciting all the facts alleged in the petition, and decreeing the several deeds so made by Allen to Mrs. Maloney to be set aside, and vesting all the title of Maloney in the plaintiff.
The admissibility of this was objected to because the present defendants were not parties to this suit; but the objection was overruled. The plaintiff then read a lease from herself to J. C. F. Maloney, dated Jan'y, 1872.
The deed of trust from Maloney and wife to Jamison, trustee of Miller, was made 14th December, 1867. It was to secure a promissory note of Maloney and his wife, of that date for $2,200 dollars, payable five years after date. It purported to convey thirteen acres of land near Kansas City, being the same before described in the deeds of Allen to Mrs. Maloney. It purported to have been executed and acknowledged by Maloney and wife before a notary public, and the certificate was formal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Castorina v. Herrmann
...and decree therein were res inter alios acta, not admissible in evidence in this cause and not binding on Hermann. Cravens v. Jameson, 59 Mo. 68; Abington v. Townsend, 271 Mo. 602, 197 S.W. 253; Chase Natl. Bank v. Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 78 L. Ed. 894, 54 S.W. 475. (4) The action of the tri......
-
Castorina v. Herrmann
...proceedings and decree therein were res inter alios acta, not admissible in evidence in this cause and not binding on Hermann. Cravens v. Jameson, 59 Mo. 68; v. Townsend, 271 Mo. 602, 197 S.W. 253; Chase Natl. Bank v. Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 78 L.Ed. 894, 54 S.W. 475. (4) The action of the t......
-
State ex rel. Kirby v. Trimble
...in the record. The ruling was therefore that the trial court was correct in receiving them in evidence. This is contrary to Cravens v. Jameson, 59 Mo. 74. There was no between the defendants and any of the parties to the earlier action. These defendants could not stand in privity with the h......
-
State ex rel. Kirby v. Trimble
...in the record. The ruling was therefore that the trial court was correct in receiving them in evidence. This is contrary to Cravens v. Jameson, 59 Mo. 74. There was no privity between the defendants and any of the parties to the earlier action. These defendants could not stand in privity wi......