Farris v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 06 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 256,144 Mo.App. 177
• Parties: JAMES L. FARRIS et al., Respondents, v. ALBERT P. HAMILTON et al., Appellants
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 256

144 Mo.App. 177

JAMES L. FARRIS et al., Respondents, v. ALBERT P. HAMILTON et al., Appellants

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

June 6, 1910

Appeal from Ray Circuit Court.--Hon. Francis H. Trimble, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Ben E Shotwell for appellant.

(1) Parol evidence of any agreement previous to the execution of the deed in question was inadmissible; the contract having been reduced to writing all prior arrangements became merged therein. Woodward v. McGaugh, 8 Mo. 161; Gooch v. Conner, 8 Mo. 391; McIlvane v. Harris, 20 Mo. 457; McLeod v. Skiles, 81 Mo. 595; Nichols v. Lapain, 105 Mo.App. 402. (2) Growing crops of the vendor on land conveyed pass with the realty to the purchaser, unless specially reserved. McIlvane v Harris, 20 Mo. 457; Pratt v. Coffman, 27 Mo 424; Hayden v. Burkemper, 101 Mo. 644; Reed v. Swan, 133 Mo. 100. (3) Henry Avis did not retain the growing corn on the premises conveyed by the reservation mentioned in said deed. Biddle v. Hussman, 23 Mo. 597; Stevenson v. Hancock, 72 Mo. 612; Bonnell v. Pack, 79 Mo.App. 496.

No briefs filed for respondent.

OPINION

JOHNSON, J.

This is a suit in replevin tried before the court without the aid of a jury. The judgment rendered was for plaintiffs and the case is here on defendant's appeal. The court filed a written opinion in which the facts stated are found to be fully sustained by the evidence. We accept that statement of the facts and quote from it as follows:

"This is a suit in replevin for corn grown in 1907 on a tract of land owned by Henry Avis. On September 20, 1907, while the corn was still standing in the field Avis quitclaimed the land to Catherine A. Hamilton, who is the wife of the defendant, Albert P. Hamilton.

"Said quitclaim deed has the following reservation: 'This deed is made subject to a lease on the above described premises, which expires March 1, 1909,' etc.

"The lease when offered in evidence was found to have been from March 1, 1908, to March 1, 1909, as originally written, with a clause rendering this lease null and void if Avis should sell the land prior to November 1, 1907; but by an amendment dated September 10, 1907, ten days before the sale to Mrs. Hamilton, the lease was from October 1, 1907, to March 1, 1909, instead of from March 1, 1908, to March a year later.

"There is some contention upon the part of the defendants that this change in the lease (which also struck out the clause therein rendering it null and void in case of a sale prior to November 1, 1907) was not put in the lease until after the deed to Mrs. Hamilton was made. The evidence does not show this to be the case however. On the contrary, in the evidence as to conversations that took place between Avis and Albert P. Hamilton, acting as agent for his wife, Catherine A. Hamilton, and prior to the making of the deed, it appears that Albert P. Hamilton had notice of this additional arrangement between Avis and his lessee and also of the fact that the lessee was to move in as soon as Avis could give possession.

"The defendants objected to the testimony as to these conversations between Avis and A. P. Hamilton prior to the making of the deed, but this objection was overruled. The testimony was not admitted for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there was an oral reservation of the crops nor to contradict or supply omissions in the deed to Mrs Hamilton, but solely for the purpose of obtaining light, if possible, on the question whether or not Hamilton had notice of the change in the original lease at the time he accepted the deed for his wife, in case the evidence should render it doubtful as to whether the change in the lease was made before or after the deed was made. In fact if the evidence showed that Avis told Hamilton of the arrangement between him and his lessee before the making of the deed, this would be a strong circumstance showing that the lease had...