Daudt v. Harmon

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtBAKEWELL
Citation16 Mo.App. 203
Decision Date28 October 1884
PartiesCHARLES DAUDT, Appellant, v. JAMES HARMON ET AL., Respondents.

16 Mo.App. 203

CHARLES DAUDT, Appellant,
v.
JAMES HARMON ET AL., Respondents.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Oct. 28, 1884.


APPEAL from the St. Charles Circuit Court, EDWARDS, J.

Affirmed.

C. DAUDT, pro se: A claim of homestead exemption will not avail against the debts created prior to the acquisition of the land sued for.-- Farra v. Quigly, 57 Mo. 289; Stivers v. Horne, 62 Mo. 473; Schindler v. Givens, 63 Mo. 395; Lincoln v. Howe, 64 Mo. 138; The State ex rel. v. Diveling, 66 Mo. 375; Stanley v. Baker, 75 Mo. 60. To make a sale of the homestead by an administrator valid, it must appear that the debt for the payment of which it

[16 Mo.App. 204]

was sold was contracted before the homstead right attached or was acquired.-- Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64; Kelsay v. Frazier, 78 Mo. 111.

LACKLAND & WILSON, for the respondents: The sale by the administrator under the order of the probate court did not carry the homestead interest. The probate court has no power or authority in law to order a sale of the homestead for the payment of a pre-existing debt. It is an inferior court of statutory creation and limited, in its jurisdiction and authority, to the exercise of those powers only which are expressly conferred upon it by statute.-- Presbyterian Church v. McElhiney, 61 Mo. 543; Jefferson County v. Cowan, 54 Mo. 234, 237; Schell v. Leland 45 Mo. 294. Before the homestead rights can be denied, it must be shown that the sale was made for the payment of a pre-existing debt.-- Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64, 69, 70; Howe v. McGivern, 25 Wis. 531, 532; Kelsay v. Frazier, 78 Mo. 113, 114. And the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that it was sold for the payment of such a debt.-- Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 69, 70; Kelsay v. Frazier, 78 Mo. 113, 114. It is not sufficient to show that one claim allowed against the estate was in fact a pre-existing debt. The records of the probate court must show that fact, and also that the homestead was ordered sold, and was sold for the payment of the pre-existing debt.-- Howe v. McGivern, 25 Wis. 525, 531, 532; Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 290, 294.


BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This was ejectment for thirty-three acres of land in St Charles County. The answer is a general denial, and set up that the original defendant was a tenant of Charles E. Keene, deceased; that defendants, George and Samuel Keene, are minors aged fourteen and sixteen years respectively, the only sons and heirs of said Charles E Keene; that they defend by their general guardian, Ell Keene;

[16 Mo.App. 205]

that the premises were the homestead of their father at the time of his death, and worth less than $1,500; that Charles E. Keene is dead; and that the homestead at his death, vested in the minor defendants.

It appears from the evidence and admissions, that the facts set up in the answer are true; that Charles E. Keene died in 1881; that the public administrator of St. Charles County took charge of his estate. The assets of the estate, exclusive of the realty in question, were $543.50, and the claims allowed against it amounted to $2,883.45; of these two were judgments in favor of Overall's estate, rendered against deceased in his lifetime, one for $325.35, and the other for $922.20, which were placed in the fourth class. There were five other allowed demands amounting to $1,635.90. The administrator obtained an order of sale of the realty to satisfy allowed demands. Under the order of sale, the premises in question were appraised at $30 an acre, or $990, free from the homestead rights of the minor heirs, and at $15 an acre, or $495, subject to the homestead right. The plaintiff Daudt was one of the appraisers. Under these proceedings the land in question was sold, and purchased by Mr. Daudt at public sale for $400. The administrator executed a deed to Daudt, under which he claims. The report of sale having been approved, Charles E. Keene moved on to the premises in 1870 or 1871, and occupied them as homestead at the time of his death in 1881. His wife died on the premises a year or two before her husband's death. There are on the premises a dwelling house and orchard,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Balance v. Gordon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 24, 1912
    ...of showing that the debt was older than the homestead right. Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64; Kelsay v. Frazier, 78 Mo. 111; Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203. Presently it was held otherwise. Murphy v. De France, 105 Mo. 53, 15 S. W. 949, 16 S. W. 861. Presently, in Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223,......
  • Ramstedt v. Thunem, No. 20193[288].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 23, 1917
    ...414]Miller v. Davis, 69 Ark. 1, 64 S. W. 97,68 S. W. 23,86 Am. St. Rep. 167;Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S. W. 423;Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203;Perrin v. Sargeant, 33 Vt. 84. We do not hold that if an order limiting time had been made the plaintiff need not have proceeded in the pro......
  • Murphy v. De France
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 19, 1891
    ...right, that the record of the probate court should show that the sale was made for an antecedent debt. Overruling Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203. 7. A party desiring to avail himself of the statutes of limitations must plead the particular statute relied Appeal from circuit court, Knox co......
  • Miller v. Davis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • February 3, 1900
    ...Ark. 4] the homestead is ordered sold is one for the payment of which it is not exempt. Howe v. McGivern, 25 Wis. 525; Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo.App. 203; 1 Woerner, Administration, § 102. Now, it appears from the testimony in this case that among the debts probated against the estate of Crave......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Balance v. Gordon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 24, 1912
    ...of showing that the debt was older than the homestead right. Rogers v. Marsh, 73 Mo. 64; Kelsay v. Frazier, 78 Mo. 111; Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203. Presently it was held otherwise. Murphy v. De France, 105 Mo. 53, 15 S. W. 949, 16 S. W. 861. Presently, in Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223,......
  • Ramstedt v. Thunem, No. 20193[288].
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 23, 1917
    ...414]Miller v. Davis, 69 Ark. 1, 64 S. W. 97,68 S. W. 23,86 Am. St. Rep. 167;Anthony v. Rice, 110 Mo. 223, 19 S. W. 423;Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203;Perrin v. Sargeant, 33 Vt. 84. We do not hold that if an order limiting time had been made the plaintiff need not have proceeded in the pro......
  • Murphy v. De France
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 19, 1891
    ...right, that the record of the probate court should show that the sale was made for an antecedent debt. Overruling Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo. App. 203. 7. A party desiring to avail himself of the statutes of limitations must plead the particular statute relied Appeal from circuit court, Knox co......
  • Miller v. Davis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • February 3, 1900
    ...Ark. 4] the homestead is ordered sold is one for the payment of which it is not exempt. Howe v. McGivern, 25 Wis. 525; Daudt v. Harmon, 16 Mo.App. 203; 1 Woerner, Administration, § 102. Now, it appears from the testimony in this case that among the debts probated against the estate of Crave......
  • 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