Fairchild v. Creswell

Decision Date02 March 1892
Citation18 S.W. 1073,109 Mo. 29
PartiesFairchild v. Creswell, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Caldwell Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. M. Davis, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

O. J Chapman for appellant.

(1) Claim for improvements cannot be tried in ejectment proceeding; suit must be instituted, as provided in statute after judgment, and before the same tribunal the ejectment case is tried before. R. S. 1889, sec. 4645, et seq.; McClanahan v. Smith, 76 Mo. 428; Jasper Co. v Wadlow, 82 Mo. 172; Malone v. Stretch, 69 Mo. 25; Henderson v. Langley, 76 Mo. 226; Stump v. Hornbeck, 94 Mo. 26. (2) Action under the statute to recover for improvements made upon land in good faith must be brought in the court in which the judgment in ejectment is rendered. Stump v. Hornbeck, 15 Mo.App. 367. (3) The judgment and decree of the court is uncertain, indefinite and inconsistent with the prior findings of the court. (4) The evidence must correspond with the allegations, and be confined to the point in issue. There was such issue as improvements, taxes, etc., before the court. State v. Roberts, 62 Mo. 388. (5) A decree must be founded upon facts, consistent with and embraced within the pleadings. Newham v. Kenton, 79 Mo. 382. Where husband renounces his marital relations -- which he does by long residence apart from his wife and family -- and permanently resides in some foreign jurisdiction, such act clothes the wife with the powers of a feme sole, and she may convey title to land held by her in fee without her husband joining in the deed, and in any event they could not recover the land from a purchaser from wife without first tendering him the purchase money and all sums expended by him in good faith on the land. Danner v. Berthold, 11 Mo.App. 351; Phelps v. Walther, 78 Mo. 323; Durning v. Waddingham, 12 Mo.App. 146; Kramer v. McCaughey, 11 Mo.App. 433.

C. S. McLaughlin for respondent.

(1) Section 4649, Revised Statutes, provides: If the value of the improvements exceed the value of the land aside from the improvements, the court may order that the occupying claimant shall, by a time to be specified in the order, take the land, and pay the ascertained value thereof to the plaintiff, and in default of such payment the plaintiff shall take possession of the land discharged from all claim of such occupying claimant. Under this section of the statute the court was authorized to render the judgment in this cause. (2) The deed from Mary Fairchild, she being a married woman, was void. 50 Mo. 228; 88 Mo. 229. (3) The husband can sue for the wife's land. Cooper v. Ord, 60 Mo. 420; Dyer v. Wittler, 89 Mo. 81. (4) Appellant appeared before the referee, and offered evidence on the question of the improvements, and is estopped to object to the court rendering judgment thereon. Kinealy v. Macklin, 67 Mo. 95.

OPINION

Gantt, P. J.

This is an action of ejectment for the southeast quarter of section 4, township 55, range 26. Ouster laid January 1, 1882. Damages claimed, $ 1,600. Monthly rents, $ 30. The suit was commenced February 28, 1887.

Defendant filed the following answer:

"Defendant, for first amended answer to the plaintiff's petition herein, denies each and every allegation therein.

"For a further defense, defendant says, that Mary Fairchild, the wife of the plaintiff, in the year 1856, or thereabouts, became the purchaser of the land in controversy, from one Mitchell Gray, who was the patentee from the United States government; that said Mary Fairchild at the time of the purchase of said land, and for a number of years prior thereto, was separated from the husband, and doing business in her own name, and represented herself as an unmarried or single woman, and in which way she purchased said land, and soon thereafter, in 1857, sold and conveyed said land to one Jacob Mowder, representing herself as a woman authorized to do business in her own name, and make her own conveyances, and that, although she had been married, her husband had absolutely abandoned her and taken up his permanent abode in California; relying upon such representations the said Jacob Mowder purchased said land from her and paid her therefor the sum of $ 300; that said Mitchell Gray made said Mary Fairchild a deed to her own sole and separate use to said land; that, by proper conveyances from said Jacob Mowder and his grantees, the defendants became the owners of said land, without any knowledge of, or concerning, said Mary Fairchild, or the plaintiff, or that they had or claimed any interest or title to the said land, the defendant paying for the said land the sum of $ 1,280; that said Jacob Mowder purchased said land from said Mary Fairchild in good faith, believing from her conduct and course of life, that she was entitled to convey as an unmarried woman.

"For a further defense to plaintiff's petition, the defendant says: That on or about the year 1856 the plaintiff's wife, Mary Fairchild, purchased the land in controversy from one Mitchell Gray; that said Mitchell Gray was the owner of said land from the United States, and made and delivered a deed for same to said Mary Fairchild; that at the time said Mary Fairchild purchased said land, and for a large number of years prior thereto, the plaintiff wholly abandoned the said Mary Fairchild as her husband, and moved away to the state of California, where he was permanently located, with no intention of ever returning to his said wife and family; that he had renounced all marital rights and obligations towards said Mary Fairchild; that said plaintiff has resided in the state of California from that time on up to the present time, and still resides there; that in 1857 the said Mary Fairchild sold and conveyed in her own name the land in controversy to one Jacob Mowder, representing to him that her said husband had wholly and permanently abandoned her; that said Jacob Mowder, relying upon said representations, purchased said land in good faith, knowing and believing that her husband, the plaintiff, had wholly abandoned her, and paid the sum of $ 300; that said Mowder was put in possession of said land as the owner thereof, and, by proper and legal conveyances from said Jacob Mowder and his grantees and assigns, the defendant became and is the owner in fee simple of said land; that from 1857 to the present time the said Jacob Mowder and his grantees have been in actual, open, notorious, adverse and continuous possession of said land, claiming the same. Defendant having fully answered asks to be discharged with his costs."

Plaintiff, to maintain the issues on his part, introduced the following evidence:

Agreement of parties as follows: "It is hereby agreed between the parties to the suit that the defendant's paper title to the land in controversy as shown by the deed records of Caldwell county is as follows: Deed from Mary Fairchild to Jacob Mowder, dated, May 23, 1857; recorded, January 6, 1858; warranty deed; consideration, $ 300. Deed from Jacob Mowder and wife to Levy Beck, dated, January 16, 1858; recorded, October 9, 1858; warranty deed; consideration, $ 300. Deed from Levy Beck and wife to Charles W. Mowder, dated, August 10, 1869; recorded, November 16, 1869; consideration, $ 1,200; warranty deed. Warranty deed from Charles W. Mowder and wife to C. C. McWilliams and Brutus Cook, dated, January 24, 1880; recorded, February 6, 1880; consideration, $ 1,400. Warranty deed from C. C. McWilliams and wife and Brutus Cook and wife to Timothy Toomay, dated, October 6, 1881; recorded, June 14, 1882; consideration, $ 1,200. Deed from Timothy Toomay and wife to David Creswell, the defendant, dated, June 13, 1885; recorded, August 3, 1885; consideration, $ 1,280. It is further agreed that on the trial of said cause the foregoing admissions may be submitted to the court as evidence of such conveyances, in lieu of the original deeds or copies thereof."

Plaintiff then read deposition of Ebenezer Fairchild, who testified "My name is Ebenezer Fairchild. Sixty-four years of age. Reside in Salmon Falls township, Eldorado county, California. I am plaintiff in this suit. Was married in March, 1842, to Mary Davis, a daughter of Dennis Davis. We first resided at her father's in Pike county, Illinois. About the first of April, 1843, her father moved to Caldwell county, Missouri, and we went with him. We lived there until spring of 1847, when we moved back to her father's place in Pike county, Illinois, and staid until spring of 1850. We came back to Caldwell county, Missouri, in spring of 1850, and I then left my wife and child at her father's, and I came to California. My object in coming to California was on account of gold excitement and for the purpose of making money and bettering our condition. The arrangement between my wife and myself was that if I thought it advisable when I got there I was to send her money to come, and she was to come here. I corresponded with her about once a month up to 1856. In 1851, sent her five or six letters with specimens of gold in them; in 1852, sent her three letters with from $ 1 to $ 5 in gold coin in them, and a check for $ 50. In 1853 sent her a check for $ 100. In 1856, in response from a letter received from her, I sent her two bills of exchange for $ 250, each. (Here is introduced the letters and records of said bills of exchange marked 'plaintiff's exhibits "A," "B" and "C"' and attached and made a part of deposition.) This money was sent to pay her passage to California. There were three children born of our marriage -- one born in 1846 and died same year, named Elizabeth Ann, Johanna, born April 10, 1848, and Willard Edgar, born December 22, 1850. The first and third born in Caldwell county, Missouri, and second, Pike county, Illinois. Last I hear from my wife and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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