Griffin v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 10 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12863.,12863.
• Citation: 204 S.W. 28
• Parties: GRIFFIN v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

204 S.W. 28

GRIFFIN v. ROBINSON.

No. 12863.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 10, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calloway County; D. H. Harris, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Thomas T. Griffin against W. M. Robinson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

N. T. Cave, of Fulton, for appellant. J. R. Baker and W. C. Maughs, both of Fulton, for respondent.

ELLISON, P. J.

Plaintiff's action is in equity, whereby he seeks to have his note for $1,000 canceled. He was successful in the trial court. The case was tried on an agreed statement, from which the following facts appear:

On the 28th of February, 1910, plaintiff (Thomas Griffin) executed his note for $1,000 (the one now in controversy) to defendant, and gave his deed of trust on 87 acres of land to secure it. On the 23d of May, 1913, plaintiff conveyed the mortgaged premises to one Daugherty; the deed reciting: "This deed is subject to a deed of trust to W. M. Robinson (defendant) for $1,000." In about a week afterwards, on the 23d of May, Daugherty gave his note to one Stokes Griffin and secured it by a deed of trust on the 87 acres he bought of plaintiff and 159 acres additional. This deed of trust was made subject to the first deed of trust on the 87 acres. Afterwards Stokes Griffin assigned the $4,000 note to defendant, Robinson, and ha thus became owner of both notes. When the note for $4,000 became due defendant, Robinson, had the last deed of trust (which was on both tracts of land) foreclosed by a sale, and he became the purchaser. At this sale it was announced, so that all parties (including plaintiff and defendant) understood, that the 87 acres was being sold subject to the first deed of trust thereon securing the $1,000 note now in controversy. The land (both tracts) brought $4,035.55 net, which was entered on Daugherty's note of $4,000, leaving a balance, including interest, of $537. It was admitted the 87-acre tract was worth $2,000. After this sale plaintiff demanded of defendant the surrender and cancellation of the note for $1,000, which defendant refused, and this action to compel its surrender and cancellation followed.

Defendant's first point is that the facts shown in the agreed statement are not sufficient to sustain a cause of action in equity. In other words, that the case shows defendant has an ample remedy at law which may be made available in defense of any legal action which may be brought against him on the note. We conclude the point is well taken, for it has been frequently decided that where it appears that a plaintiff has an ample remedy at law he has no cause of action in equity. Somerville v. Hellman, 210 Mo. 567, 573, 111 S. W. 35; Benton Co. v. Morgan, 163 Mo....