Davidson v. I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Co.

• Decision Date: 28 March 1913
• Citation: 249 Mo. 474,155 S.W. 1
• Parties: DAVIDSON et al. v. I. M. DAVIDSON REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT CO. et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

155 S.W. 1

249 Mo. 474

DAVIDSON et al. v. I. M. DAVIDSON REAL ESTATE & INVESTMENT CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 28, 1913.

On Motion for Rehearing and Motion to Modify, April 8, 1913.

1. PARTITION (§ 88) — CLAIMS AGAINST ESTATE — PROCEEDS SUBJECT TO.

In partition of a decedent's land, valid claims against the estate were properly allowed out of the partition proceeds, though mortgages given to secure them were adjudged invalid.

2. JUDGMENT (§ 251) — CONFORMITY TO ISSUES.

A judgment cannot be broader than the issues made by the pleadings.

3. JUDGMENT (§ 747) — CONCLUSIVENESS — QUIETING TITLE.

A decree quieting title against persons who were described as mortgagees did not affect any rights held by them independently of the mortgages.

4. ESTOPPEL (§ 68) — EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL — INTEREST IN LAND.

That in a former suit to quiet title defendant, claiming under mortgages, defended the title of the mortgagor to all the lands involved, does not estop him to claim an interest on partition independently of the mortgages; the complaining parties not being injured by the inconsistency of his claims.

5. PARTITION (§ 95) — VACATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT — EFFECT.

Vacation of a final judgment in partition for fraud left the parties in possession of the rights granted under the interlocutory judgment.

6. PARTITION (§ 113) — INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT — CONCLUSIVENESS.

Affirmance on appeal of an interlocutory judgment in partition makes it conclusive.

7. PARTITION (§ 113) — INTERLOCUTORY DECREE — AFFIRMANCE.

A decision on appeal from an interlocutory judgment in partition that the record did not authorize vacation of the judgment for fraud was not such affirmance of the judgment as makes it conclusive.

8. TRUSTS (§ 262) — FIDUCIARY AS PURCHASER — BURDEN OF PROOF.

In partition under a will, the burden was on a testamentary trustee to show the fairness of contracts or deeds under which he claimed an individual interest in the property.

9. TRUSTS (§ 231) — FIDUCIARY AS PURCHASER.

Deeds giving a testamentary trustee an interest in testator's lands at an inadequate price and under an unconscionable contract are properly set aside, subject to a lien in his favor for the price paid, but without interest where he received the rents and profits.

10. CORPORATIONS (§ 119) — SALE OF STOCK — EFFECT.

A widow's sale of stock in a corporation organized to take over her husband's estate did not pass her title to the estate property.

11. JUDGMENT (§ 675) — PERSON CONCLUDED — CORPORATIONS.

Judgment quieting title as against a corporation estopped officers from claiming interests individually under prior deeds, where they managed the suit for the corporation and testified therein.

12. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (§ 216) — ALLOWANCES.

It was proper to refuse an allowance for managing an estate to one who acted for a corporation wrongfully in charge of the estate.

13. JUDGMENT (§ 747) — CONCLUSIVENESS — QUIETING TITLE.

A decree in a suit to quiet title does not affect liens which defendants were not called upon to assert.

14. PARTITION (§ 83) — SCOPE OF RELIEF.

In partition the court has wide latitude in the adjustment of equities.

15. PARTITION (§ 109) — SETTING ASIDE SALE — LIABILITIES OF PURCHASER — ACCOUNTING.

A corporation wrongfully in charge of property of an estate as purchaser at a void partition sale will not be held to the full reasonable rental value of the property, on the setting aside of the sale, if it tried to get all the rents it could, and the difference between the amount collected and such value is slight.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. C. Sheppard, Judge.

Action by Mary J. Davidson and others against the I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company, Isaac H. Barnhill, and others. From the decree, plaintiffs and the named defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Louis F. Dinning, of Poplar Bluff, John M. Atkinson, of Jefferson City, and David W. Hill, of Poplar Bluff, for appellants. Wilson Cramer, of Jackson, Phillips, Lentz & Phillips, and Ernest A. Green, all of Poplar Bluff, for respondents.

GRAVES, J.

The original petition in this case was filed in 1901. Davidson v. Davidson, 226 Mo. 13, 125 S. W. 1143, 136 Am. St. Rep. 615. The exact character of this petition is not material, and we only mention it in passing. In January, 1902, all the heirs at law of I. M. Davidson except Rose Belle Finley filed their amended petition in this cause, in which petition they asked, first, for a construction of the last will of the said I. M. Davidson, deceased, and in that connection asked that a trust attempted to be created by such will be declared void for uncertainty and other things; and, secondly, this amended petition prayed for the partition of the lands, and in connection with such claim urged that such lands should be sold and the proceeds divided. The defendants named in that suit were Rose Belle Finley, one of the Davidson girls, James L. Dalton, and some other parties who held liens against the Davidson estate. Issues were duly formed by appropriate pleadings, and the circuit court of Butler county entered an interlocutory decree of partition June 19, 1903. Under this interlocutory decree an attempted sale was had and the I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company was reported as the purchaser of all the landed interest of that estate, reasonably estimated at $200,000 for about $98,000. In October, 1903, a final judgment was entered approving the report of sale and ordering distribution. Dalton, who had been appointed by the court as trustee under the Davidson will, was discharged from his trust by order duly made. No appeals were taken from this judgment. In May, 1906, Laura Carter Davidson, who through her guardian, Mary J. Davidson, was a party plaintiff in the partition case upon the filing of the amended petition in 1902, supra, having attained her majority, brought a direct proceeding in the circuit court of Butler county, attacking the interlocutory and final judgments aforesaid for fraud and other matters, and attacking the sale, the report of sale, and the deeds made thereunder for the same reasons. In this case, which for convenience we shall hereafter speak of as the Laura Davidson suit, issues were duly framed by appropriate pleadings, and the cause tried by the circuit court of Mississippi county to which court the venue had been changed. The petition in the Laura Davidson suit not only prayed for the cancellation of the judgments aforesaid, but also prayed to have her interest of one-ninth in her father's estate quieted in her. The Davidson heirs, who were made defendants by Laura Carter Davidson, filed answers admitting the facts of her petition, and asking that the decree go as prayed for by her. The answers of the other defendants were quite different. The Mississippi county circuit court held that the final decree of partition and all the proceedings after the interlocutory decree were void, and vacated all the steps taken after the interlocutory decree. This judgment with a slight modification was affirmed in Davidson v. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Co., 226 Mo. 1, 125 S. W. 1143, 136 Am. St. Rep. 615. This disposition of the Laura Davidson Case left the case now before us pending in the circuit court of Butler upon a mere interlocutory judgment in partition, which we then said was a judgment within the breast of the trial judge until final judgment was entered.

Taking a cue from our opinion in the Laura Davidson Case, an amended petition was filed in this case in the Butler county circuit court on April 4, 1910. New plaintiffs were substituted and added and new defendants added, if we take as the starting point of this long-drawn-out lawsuit the petition of 1902 as the basis. This petition, if the description of the real estate is omitted, is not long, and had best be set out. Leaving out the long list of property involved therein, it reads: "Now at this time come the plaintiffs in the above-entitled cause, and by leave of court file this, their amended petition in said cause, and for such amended petition state: That the plaintiffs are seised as tenants in common of the following described lands, to wit: * * * And that a majority of the owners thereof reside in said county of Butler. Plaintiffs further state that the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to the following shares of said lands: Jay Davidson and Ida M. Rhodes, each an undivided one-ninth. Mary J. Davidson, Ira M. Davidson, Rose Belle Davidson, Laura C. Davidson, Grant Davidson, May Davidson, and Nina Davidson, each an undivided 1/18. Louis F. Dinning and John M. Atkinson, each an undivided 7/72. David W. Hill an undivided 7/36 of the lands above described; and the defendant, James L. Dalton, claims a debt against said lands in the approximate sum of $26,000, mentioned in the interlocutory decree heretofore rendered in this cause; that the defendants William Ferguson and I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company claim the share of said lands belonging to Jay Davidson; that the defendants Isaac H. Barnhill and I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company claim the share of lands belonging to Ida M. Rhodes; that the plaintiff Chris L. Rhodes is the husband of Ida M. Rhodes; that the plaintiff, Nina Davidson, is a minor, under the age of 18 years, and that W. W. Turner is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting curator of her estate; and that the defendant I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Missouri. Plaintiffs further state that whatever right, title, or interest the defendants William Ferguson and Isaac H. Barnhill hold, or claim to hold, in the above-described lands are held by them in trust for the I. M. Davidson Real Estate & Investment Company, which corporation has since the 12th day of October, 1903, been wrongfully in the possession of...