Farra v. Quigly

• Decision Date: 31 August 1874
• Citation: 57 Mo. 284
• Parties: JAMES FARRA, et al., Appellants v. WILLIAM QUIGLY, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

57 Mo. 284

JAMES FARRA, et al., Appellants

v.WILLIAM QUIGLY, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

August Term, 1874.

Appeal from Linn Circuit Court.

A. W. Mullins, for Appellants.

G. D. Burgess, for Respondent.

NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action of ejectment, to recover about 81 acres of land in Linn county. The plaintiff bought the land at sheriff's sale and got a deed for it. The judgment under which the sale was made, was rendered the 16th of June, 1872, on a note executed by defendant on the first day of Sept., 1869. The defendant relied on the protection of the statute concerning homesteads, and the only question in the case arises on this point.

The facts seem to be undisputed. At and prior to the execution of the note of Sept., 1869, defendant lived in Sullivan county, on a tract of land containing about 434 acres, which he had purchased from one Calhoun, and worth about $2,500. The defendant, during the year 1869, traded off about 200 acres of this tract in Sullivan county for 47 acres of land in Indiana and a note for $600, still retaining his homestead in Sullivan county. Afterwards, and perhaps in the same year, he exchanged this place in Sullivan county for a tract of 60 acres in Linn county, owned by one Henderson, and in the Spring of the year 1870, moved on to this Henderson place, with his family, and occupied it during this season. Before this he had traded off his Indiana land for a tract of land in Mercer county, Mo., containing about 390 acres, and finally with this Mercer county land and the note for $600, obtained in the Indiana trade, he bought the place on which he was living with his family when the execution was levied. He still retained the Henderson place, on which his son lived, after he moved to the place in controversy, called the Wells place.

Upon these facts the court declared the law to be “that if the court believes from the evidence that defendant was the head of a family with whom he resided in Sullivan county, Mo., and at that time owned a tract of land which he occupied as a homestead, at and prior to the execution of the note upon which the judgment was rendered under which plaintiffs claim title to the premises here sued for; and that he acquired the premises in controversy by means of the sale or exchange of the Sullivan county land and was occupying the same with his family as a homestead, at the commencement of this suit, it is bound to find for the defendant, provided, it further believes that the premises here sued for do not contain a greater number of acres than 160, and are not of greater value than the sum of fifteen hundred dollars.”

The plaintiffs asked an instruction which was refused, to the effect that: “Although the court finds that on 1st September, 1869, when the note was given by the defendant to plaintiffs, upon which plaintiffs recovered the judgment recited in the sheriff's deed, the defendant was residing on a farm in Sullivan county, containing upwards of 400 acres, purchased of Sam. P. Calhoun, and upon which there was still owing by defendant to said Calhoun, on account of the purchase money, about $1,000; and that after said 1st day of September, 1869, defendant traded 200 acres of said land for 47 acres of land in the State of Indiana and a note for $600, and that defendant after this last trade sold and exchanged the remainder of his land in Sullivan county, being 200 acres and over, to one Henderson for 60 acres...