Edmonston v. Carter

• Decision Date: 10 February 1904
• Citation: 79 S.W. 459,180 Mo. 515
• Parties: EDMONSTON v. CARTER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

79 S.W. 459

180 Mo. 515

EDMONSTON v. CARTER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

February 10, 1904.

JUDGMENT—RES ADJUDICATA—FACTS IN ISSUE—PRIVITY—MORTGAGES—VALIDITY— DESCRIPTION OF LAND.

1. In an action on a note, plaintiff relied on an instrument executed by the maker and his wife and daughter, by the terms of which a lien securing the note was created on certain lands, which were held in trust for the benefit of the maker and his wife and children, and the defense was that the land could not be conveyed by the beneficiaries. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and the land sold under execution; and, in a subsequent action of ejectment by the purchaser, defendants again set up the creation of the trust, and claimed that the maker of the note had no power to charge the land. Held, that the decision in the first case was res adjudicata.

2. Where, in an action on a note secured by a lien on certain lands held in trust for the maker, the trustee, though a party, was not liable on the note, he was not liable to a personal judgment, but an adjudication that the land was subject to sale was the only judgment that could be rendered against him.

3. Where, in a suit on a note secured by a mortgage on certain land, the mortgage relied on described the land as certain property held in trust for the mortgagor; and the petition stated that, at the date of the mortgage, certain land described in the petition was held in trust for the mortgagor, an objection that the mortgage was void because it did not describe the land was of no merit.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Audrain County; E. M. Hughes, Judge.

Action by W. A. Edmonston against Alexander Carter, Jr., and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Geo. Robertson and F. R. Jesse, for appellants. P. H. Cullen, for respondent.

VALLIANT, J.

This is an action of ejectment for 240 acres of land in Audrain county. The real defendants are A. G. Turner, who claims to hold the legal title in trust for certain purposes, and the widow and children of Thomas Helm, who was a defendant, but who has died since the judgment in the case, and while it has been pending in this court on appeal. The defendants endeavored to convert the action into a suit in equity by pleading in their answers certain matters which they conclude render the judgment in a certain other suit against them, out of which they assert that the plaintiff's claim of title arises, void. At the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed from the sheriff of Audrain county conveying the land in question to one Thomas F. Roden, dated 26th June, 1899. That deed recited that on March 21, 1899, a judgment was rendered in the circuit court of that county in favor of Roden against the above-named defendants for $1,495.10 and costs, which was by the judgment declared to be a lien on the land, and a special execution awarded to satisfy the same; that under such execution the land was regularly seized and sold by the sheriff, and at the sale Roden became the purchaser. Next in evidence was a deed from Roden to the plaintiff. Then followed evidence of the rental value of the land, and of demand for possession. The plaintiff then rested. The defendants introduced in evidence the record in the case of Roden v. Helm et al., out of which the plaintiff's title came. The petition in the Roden case was in two counts. The first count was a declaration on a promissory note for $1,450, dated October 31, 1898. The second count referred to the same note, and stated that Thomas Helm (who was the husband and father of the other Helms) in the years past owned real and personal property to the amount of $10,000, and caused that amount to be invested in the land in question (describing it), and caused it to be deeded to defendant Turner as trustee for the use and benefit of himself and his wife and children; that on 31st October, 1898, the defendants executed and delivered to plaintiff an instrument in writing, which was attached to and made a part of the petition, by which they created a lien on the land in favor of Roden to secure the note. The prayer of that count was that the judgment on the note be decreed to be special lien on the land; that the trustee be ordered to pay the amount, and, in default of such payment, that the land, or a sufficient quantity thereof, be sold to satisfy the same. A copy of the writing sued on was filed with the petition, and is as follows: "Mexico, Mo., Oct. 31, 1898. Whereas, Thomas Helm has become indebted to Thomas F. Roden in the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars on account of necessaries furnished said Helm, his wife and family, and whereas said Thomas Helm and his wife, Anna, and his daughter, Elizabeth, have this day executed to said Roden their promissory note for fourteen hundred and fifty dollars due one day after date bearing 8 per cent. compound interest, and whereas the said Thomas, Anna and Elizabeth Helm have an interest in certain real and personal property now held in trust for them and others by one A. G. Turner as trustee, and as security for said note we give and grant to said Thomas F. Roden a lien on said trust estate and create a charge in said Roden's favor against our interest in said trust estate for the purpose of securing said debt or note, and agree that said trust estate in whatever form it now is or may be in the future shall stand as security to said Roden for said note and interest. [Signed] Thomas Helm. Anna S. Helm. Elizabeth Helm." There was a demurrer to the petition, which was overruled. The defendants in that case then filed an answer, in which they stated, in substance, that in November, 1880, Thomas Helm and his wife made a deed, in consideration of $1 and love and affection, conveying certain land in Illinois then belonging to Helm to...