Gatewood v. Hart

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Citation: 58 Mo. 261
• Parties: WILLIAM L. GATEWOOD, et al., Respondents, v. SAMUEL B. HART, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 Mo. 261

WILLIAM L. GATEWOOD, et al., Respondents,

v.SAMUEL B. HART, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.

Stuart Carkener, for Appellant.

I. It is the settled law that a purchaser for value, without notice of a deed previously made but acknowledged before a justice of the peace of a county different from the one where the land lies, obtains the title as against such deed; also, that the record of such deed as to all purchasers prior to 1847, is a nullity and imparts no notice. (Bishop vs. Schneider, 46 Mo., 472-479, et seq.;Stevens vs. Hampton, 46 Mo., 404; Ryan vs. Carr, 46 Mo., 483; Musick vs. Barney, 49 Mo., 458; Briggs vs. Henderson, 49 Mo., 531-536.)

II. The act of 2nd Feb. 1847 operates prospectively from its date, and was intended to settle, and not unsettle and overturn titles. (46 Mo., 492; 49 Mo., 441; Musick vs. Barney, 49 Mo., 458; Briggs vs. Henderson, 49 Mo., 531; Allen vs. Moss, 27 Mo., 359.)

Henderson & Shields, for Respondents.

I. The act of February 2nd, 1847, in relation to the effect of deeds recorded prior thereto, but improperly acknowledged, affects with notice all parties, or persons acquiringtitle thereafter absolutely; and such alienees cannot avoid the force of such statute and shield themselves behind want of notice to their vendor. (Sess. Acts 1847, p. 95, § 8; Wagn. Stat., 595, § 35; Allen vs. Moss, 27 Mo., 354-363; Bishop vs. Schneider, 49 Mo., 472; Ryan vs. Carr, 46 Mo., 483; Musick vs. Barney, 49 Mo., 458; Henderson vs. Briggs, 49 Mo., 531; Digman vs. McCullom, 47 Mo., 372; Lemay vs. Poupenez, 35 Mo., 74-6.)

II. Unless it is affirmatively shown that alienees have acquired by bona fide purchase for a valuable consideration, they cannot invoke the protection of the equitable rule of want of notice to their vendor. (1 Sto. Eq., § 40, et seq. and note; Bishop vs. Schneider, 46 Mo., 472; Aubuchon vs. Bender, 44 Mo., 560; Briggs vs. Henderson, 49 Mo., 531-6.)

SHERWOOD, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Action of ejectment for the west half of the north-east quarter of section 14, in township 50, of range 6 west, situate in Montgomery County. The answer admitted possession of the land sued for, but denied the other allegations of the petition.

The cause was tried on the following agreed statement of facts: “That one Isaac V. Herrick was the patentee of the land in controversy, and in March, 1837, conveyed the land situated in Montgomery County, Missouri, along with other lands situated in Ralls, Audrain and Pike Counties, to one J. D. Fyler, by a deed acknowledged before a justice of the peace of Pike County, Missouri, and that said deed was copied on the record of deeds of Montgomery County, Missouri, prior to April, 1839; that at the April Term, 1839, of the Circuit Court of Montgomery Co., Mo., the land in controversy was sold by the sheriff of said Montgomery County, as the land of said Herrick, under a judgment rendered in an attachment suit brought against said Isaac V. Herrick, the patentee of the land; and at said sale in April, 1839, one N. G. Wilcox bought said land for a valuable consideration then paid, and received a sheriff's deed therefor in due form, which was at once placed on the record of deeds; that at the time of said purchase, said Wilcox had no actual notice of said deed from Herrick to Fyler, or of the record of the same; that said Wilcox conveyed said land, in 1859, to one W. B. Beshears, under whom the defendant claims to be the owner of the premises, and plaintiffs claim under said deed from Herrick to Fyler, acknowledged before a justice of the peace of Pike County as aforesaid, in March, 1837.”

This case hinges upon the proper construction to be given to § 8 of “an act to quiet vexatious land litigation,” approved February 2, 1847. And it may be remarked in the outset, that the court below tried this cause under a total misconception as to the force, effect, and operation of the section referred to, which is as follows:

“The records heretofore made by the recorder of the proper county, by copying from any deed of conveyance, deed of trust, mortgage, will or copy of a will, that has neither been proven or acknowledged, or which has been proven or acknowledged, but not according to the law in force at the time the same was done, shall, from and after the passage of this act, impart notice to all persons of the contents of such instruments, and all subsequent...