Foster v. Williams

• Decision Date: 02 May 1910
• Parties: FOSTER et al. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

128 S.W. 797

144 Mo. App. 219

FOSTER et al. v. WILLIAMS.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 2, 1910.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 1910.

1. SUBROGATION (§ 21)—PERSONS ENTITLED— VOLUNTEERS—STRANGERS.

The right of subrogation can be invoked to reimburse a party for money expended to extinguish a debt, lien, or charge on land in case payment was made by one who at the time had, or in good faith supposed he had, an interest in discharging the demand, but cannot be invoked in favor of volunteers or strangers.

2. SUBROGATION (§ 36)—LIENS—PAYMENT— INNOCENT PURCHASERS.

Where tenants in common of certain land were severally bound by a decree for the payment of a debt which was a lien on the land, and two of them paid the entire debt to protect the title to the land, they were entitled to a lien on the interest of the other tenants for whose benefit the payment was made as between them, but not as against intervening rights of innocent purchasers of the interest sought to be charged.

3. VENDOR AND PURCHASER (§ 231)—BONA FIDE PURCHASER—JUDGMENT.

A decree canceled a sheriff's deed to certain land owned by tenants in common, and declared that the latter should be permitted to redeem the land on payment of $220; that on payment the deed should be canceled and the land vested in the tenants in common in specified proportions. The decree also recited that two of defendants had paid the sum specified in court, and that the sheriff's deed was therefore set aside and the title vested as stated. Held, that such decree was not notice to an innocent purchaser of the interest of two of the tenants in common that they had not contributed their share of the amount required to satisfy the lien, and which their co-tenants were entitled to claim against them therefor; but the purchaser was entitled to assume that the court would have adjusted in such suit all the equities arising between the tenants in common.

4. VENDOR AND PURCHASER(§ 244)—BONA FIDE PURCHASER—NOTICE OF OUTSTANDING CLAIMS.

Evidence held to sustain a finding that a purchaser of certain undivided interests in land had no notice of an outstanding claim by the holders of the remaining interest against his grantors for a proportion and part of the payment made necessary to free the property from liens.

5. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1009)—FINDINGS IN EQUITY—REVIEW.

Though the appellate court in an equity case has jurisdiction to review both the facts and the law, the court will defer largely to the finding of the trial court when the evidence is conflicting, especially where the witnesses have testified orally.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Texas County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by John B. Foster and another against Robert W. Williams. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.

Lamar, Barton & Lamar, for appellants. Dooley, Hiett & Millard, for respondent.

NIXON, P. J.

This was an action in equity wherein plaintiffs sought to fasten their claim for $73.34 with interest upon the share in certain lands which defendant obtained from one Marcus Gillispie. The land in question originally belonged to plaintiffs John B. Foster and T. H. Britton, together with Marcus Gillispie and Phœba Jeffries, Foster and Britton owning an undivided four-sixths and Marcus Gillispie and Phœba Jeffries each owning a one-sixth interest; but the ownership of these parties in the land was subject to a sheriff's deed held by one G. W. Halley. Before the present litigation arose, John B. Foster, T. H. Britton, and Phœba Jeffries had filed an action in the circuit court of Texas county against G. W. Halley, the holder of the sheriff's deed, and Marcus Gillispie, who refused to join as plaintiff, and on May 27, 1905, the court entered a decree in that case which is, in part, as follows: "It is therefore ordered and decreed that plaintiffs and defendant Marcus Gillispie pay, and they are hereby permitted to redeem said real estate from, all liens, incumbrances, and claims of every kind of the defendant G. W. Halley upon the payment of the sum of $220 to the clerk of this court for his use and benefit, with interest thereon from this date at the rate of 8 per cent. until paid, and upon such payment such sale and deed will be canceled and set aside and for naught held, and the title to said real estate will be vested as follows: Four undivided sixths in plaintiffs T. H. Britton and John B. Foster, and one undivided sixth in plaintiff Phœba Jeffries, and one undivided sixth in defendant Marcus Gillispie. And now on the 27th day of May, 1905, comes into court plaintiffs John B. Foster and T. H. Britton and pay to the clerk thereof the sum of $220 for the use and benefit of defendant G. W. Halley. It is therefore ordered and decreed by the court that the sheriff's deed dated on the 12th day of November, 1903, purporting to convey to defendant G. W. Halley all the right, title, and interest of * * * to the following described lands in Texas county, Mo., * * * be and the same is hereby canceled and set aside and for naught held, and all the right, title, and interest of the defendant G. W. Halley be and the same is hereby divested, and the title to the said land be and the same is hereby vested as follows: Four undivided sixths in plaintiffs John B. Foster and T. H. Britton, one undivided sixth in plaintiff Phœba Jeffries, and one undivided sixth in defendant Marcus Gillispie."

There is some mention in the record of an appeal having been taken from said decree; but it was abandoned. On October 29, 1906, by warranty deed, Phœba Jeffries conveyed her one-sixth interest in said land to Marcus Gillispie. On August 8, 1907, Marcus Gillispie, by warranty deed, conveyed all his interest in said land—being his one-sixth and the one-sixth which he had acquired from Phœba Jeffries—to Robert Williams, the defendant herein, for a consideration of $400.

The petition in this case alleges that when, in the previous suit against G. W. Halley, the court ordered that John B. Foster, T. H. Britton, Phœba Jeffries, and Marcus Gillispie should pay $220 to the use of G. W. Halley, and thereupon be permitted to redeem the land, Phœba Jeffries and Marcus Gillispie, although requested so to do, refused to contribute their part of the said $220; that these plaintiffs, in order to protect their interests in said land, were forced to pay all of the said $220; that one-sixth of said amount should have been paid by Phœba Jeffries and one-sixth by Marcus Gillispie, but that they had never paid the same; that the part so advanced by plaintiffs for said Phœba Jeffries and Marcus Gillispie was $73.34, and said amount is yet due and unpaid; that defendant Robert Williams now claims to own the said two-sixths; that the said real estate in the hands of the defendant is subject to the claim of these plaintiffs for the money so paid out as...