Frame v. Humphreys
Decision Date | 14 May 1901 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | FRAME v. HUMPHREYS. |
Appeal from circuit court, Grundy county; H. G. Orton, Special Judge.
Action by John M. Frame against Benjamin Humphreys. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Jas. M. Frame and J. S. Parker, for appellant. A. H. Burkeholder and O. G. Bain, for respondent.
This is an action in ejectment, in which, from a judgment of the circuit court of Grundy county in favor of the plaintiff for an undivided two-tenths of the real estate claimed in his petition, both parties appeal. There was no dispute about the facts. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Upon the documentary evidence and an agreed statement of facts, Jewett Norris is the common source of title. The premises in controversy are a part of the land conveyed by deed of said Norris and wife, as follows: The questions in the case turn upon the construction of this deed. At the time it was made, the said Mary Ann Walker was the wife of Thomas Walker, by whom she then had 14 living children; and Thomas Walker had one other child by a former wife, who was the Sarah P. Allen mentioned in the deed. Afterwards, on the 24th of March, 1846, the said Mary Ann and Thomas Walker executed a deed of trust on the premises, of that date, to secure an indebtedness to Grundy county, which was afterwards duly foreclosed, and the premises purchased by and duly conveyed to John B. McDonald by deed dated February 8, 1848. Afterwards, on the 6th day of January, 1854, the said Mary Ann and Thomas Walker, by their quitclaim deed of that date, duly executed, conveyed all their interest in the premises to said McDonald; and on the 14th of March, 1855, 2 of the said 14 children having in the meantime died without issue, the remaining 12, viz. William Walker, Martha Walker, Yancy Walker, Lafayette Walker, Alonzo Walker, Thomas Walker, Charles Walker, John D. Walker, Jane P. Hughes, Elizabeth D. Benson, Mary A. Runyan, and Frances Walker, by their quitclaim deed of that date, duly executed, also conveyed all their interest in the premises to the said McDonald. The defendants thereafter, by mesne conveyances, acquired the title of the said McDonald; and since that date he and his mesne grantors have been in the continuous, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the premises, claiming title, as McDonald and his grantors had been prior thereto, from the date of the Norris deed. On the 27th of December, 1888, the said Mary Ann Walker died. Prior to her death 5 of her 14 children aforesaid had also died, viz. John D. Walker, Alonzo Walker, Elizabeth D. Benson, Yancy Walker, and Charles Walker. The other 7 survived her. Yancy Walker and Charles Walker died without issue. John D. Walker, who was the oldest son of the said Mary Ann, died leaving 2 children, — Porter Walker and Serena Graves, — who survived their grandmother. Elizabeth D. Benson died leaving 3 children, — Edward Benson, Ruth Shanklin, and Beatrice Dunlap, — who survived their grandmother. And Alonzo Walker died leaving 1 child, Dele Walker, who survived his grandmother. On the 13th day of October, 1898, the said Edward Benson, Ruth Shanklin, and Beatrice Dunlap, by their quitclaim deed of that date, conveyed all their interest in the premises to Aaron Oldfather; and on the 26th day of November, 1898, the said Porter Walker and Serena Graves, by their quitclaim deed of that date, conveyed all their interest in the premises to the said Aaron Oldfather, who on the 7th day of December, 1898, by his quitclaim deed of that date, conveyed the premises to the plaintiff, and this is the chain of title under which he claims. It was further agreed "that it has always been fully understood and agreed, from the making of said deed by Norris, between the parties thereto, including Thomas Walker, father of said Sarah B. Allen and the children of Mary Ann Walker by him, that Sarah B. Allen's father had received all the estate which she had inherited from her mother, and that she was for that reason named in said deed as a grantee, and that the provisions and conditions in the granting clause of said deed with reference to Sarah B. Allen, whereby she was to be considered...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crismond v. Kendrick
...791; Adams v. Cary, 226 S.W. 834; Tygard v. Hartwell, 204 Mo. 200; Rimes v. Mansfield, 96 Mo. 394; Gibson v. Bogy, 28 Mo. 478; Frame v. Humphreys, 164 Mo. 336; Donan v. Intelligencer Printing & Publishing Co., 70 Mo. 168; Major v. Bukley & Peacher, 51 Mo. 227; Mott v. Morris, 155 S.W. 434; ......
-
Lewis v. Brubaker
...v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Kenrick v. Cole, 61 Mo. 572. (b) The deed must be governed by the law in force at the time of execution. Frame v. Humphreys, 164 Mo. 336; 18 C.J. 251, sec. 195, note 17. (c) The constitutional prohibition extends to the deed itself, not part of it. The void portions are......
-
Lewis v. Brubaker
...v. Reel, 61 Mo. 592; Kenrick v. Cole, 61 Mo. 572. (b) The deed must be governed by the law in force at the time of execution. Frame v. Humphreys, 164 Mo. 336; 18 C. J. 251, 195, note 17. (c) The constitutional prohibition extends to the deed itself, not part of it. The void portions are the......
-
Okla. City v. Local Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
...the law in force at the time they are executed." 18 C. J. 251. ¶23 See, also, Burnett v. Piercy, 149 Cal. 178, 86 P. 603; Frame v. Humphreys, 164 Mo. 336, 64 S. W. 116; Brown v. Inhabitants of Peabody (1917) 228 Mass. 52, 116 N. E. 958; Stuart v. Fox (1930) 129 Me. 407, 152 AtI. 413. ¶24 Th......