East v. Davis

• Citation: 204 S.W. 402
• Decision Date: 04 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 18809.,18809.
• Parties: EAST et al. v. DAVIS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

204 S.W. 402

EAST et al. v. DAVIS.

No. 18809.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 4, 1918.

Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas; William T. Ragland, Judge.

Suit by Nancy East and others against Texie Louise Brooks Davis. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

M. L. Farres, of Hannibal, for appellants. Eby & Hulse, of Hannibal, for respondent.

BLAIR, J.

The heirs at law of William J. Marsh appeal from an adverse judgment in a suit they brought to establish a trust in the west 82 feet of lot 8, block 30, in the city of Hannibal. Respondent is the grantee of Artemisia Marsh, in whom legal title apparently vested by trustee's deed under sale in 1881.

William J. and Artemisia Marsh were married prior to 1864, and lived as husband and wife until the death of William J. in 1891. Artemisia Marsh died in 1910. They had no children. In 1870 the pair took respondent, then nine days old, and thenceforward reared and cared for her as their own child.

William J. Marsh formerly owned lot 8. To secure his note for $2,500 he and his wife, on September 26, 1871, executed a deed of trust conveying lot 8. The note was not paid, and on May 23, 1881, the trustee sold the property. The trustee's deed recites compliance with the terms of the trust deed and conveys the lot to Artemisia Marsh, who, the deed further recites, bid and paid $2,041 for the property. This deed was dated and acknowledged May 23, 1881, and recorded May 25, 1881. In 1907 Artemisia Marsh executed a deed conveying the west 82 feet of lot 8 to respondent. This deed was recorded in 1910, a few days before the death of Artemisia Marsh.

It is alleged respondent is a voluntary grantee; that either the $2,500 note secured by the trust deed of September 26, 1871, was paid before the trustee's sale, or that Artemisia Marsh and the trustee fraudulently conspired and contrived the deed to Artemisia in order to defeat the title of the heirs of William J. Marsh and secure the property for respondent. It is also alleged the purchase at the trustee's sale was made with the money of William J. Marsh, and that the equitable title therefore vested in him.

I. Decisions discussing the effect of payment of notes secured by deeds of trust are cited. There is no evidence the note secured by the trust deed of September 26, 1871, was paid prior to the trustee's sale, May 23, 1881. The question is not in the case.

II. The argument advanced for a reversal rests largely upon a view that Artemisia Marsh, after May 23, 1881, joined in certain deeds, which necessarily, it is argued, imply a recognition by her that title was still in William J. Marsh. Several of these are deeds in which Artemisia and her husband join as grantors and which she acknowledges in the manner then required, relinquishing, on separate examination, her "right, title, and interest" in the property. It seems to be assumed that the fact the husband is named jointly with the wife as grantor amounts to a recognition by her that the title was his. If this is sound reasoning, it would apply likewise to the husband. The position is untenable. The deed was entirely sufficient to convey the wife's title, and the joining of the husband was essential to its validity. Thornton v. Bank, 71 Mo. loc. cit. 230, 231; Chauvin v. Wagner, 18 Mo. loc. cit. 546, 547.

III. May 23, 1881, the Marshes executed a trust deed to secure their note to Isabelle Thornton. This deed conveyed to the trustee the west 112 feet of lot 8 and excepted in terms the east 30 feet of the lot. It is said this deed purports to be the act of one grantor and secured the note of William J. Marsh. The record shows the note was signed by both the grantors in the deed. Further, the wife lawfully could have conveyed her property to secure the husband's sole debt. The deed describes both the husband and wife as grantors, and the wife acknowledges it as such. It was effectual to convey her title. There is nothing to support the idea that this deed amounted to a recognition by Artemisia of title in William J.

IV. On May 23, 1881, the Marshes sold the east 30 feet of lot 8 to McVeigh. The deed was executed by both Artemisia and William J., and both are described as grantors. By it McVeigh was also given the right to use a vault on another part of lot 8, "now owned by the grantor." The reference to "the grantor" does not imply that William J. Marsh had title. The word, of itself, could refer as well to Mrs. Marsh as to Mr. Marsh. The context shows it was intended to refer to the owner of the west 112 feet of lot 8. It in no way indicates who that owner was. The solution of that question cannot be aided by this recital.

V. The deeds mentioned under III and IV, supra, may indicate the method used by Artemisia Marsh to raise money to pay her bid at the trustee's sale. We discover no other significance in them. Such method has nothing unusual in it.

VI. Respondent had some means from her father's estate. She acquired the note secured by the Thornton trust deed. In 1889 she released this by quitclaim deed in which the Marshes are both named as grantees. It is said this estops respondent to deny title was in William J. Marsh. Responden...