Harrison v. Moore
Decision Date | 03 December 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 18563.,18563. |
Citation | 199 S.W. 188 |
Parties | HARRISON et al. v. MOORE et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Reynolds County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.
Action by E. A. Harrison and others against Louise C. Moore and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, the defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
It is admitted by all parties to this suit that the following statement of the facts of the case and proposition of law to be decided are correctly stated by counsel for appellant, which are as follows:
Leslie C. Green, of Poplar Bluff, and Ernest A. Green, of St. Louis, for appellant. R. I. January, of Centerville, for respondents.
WOODSON, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Counsel for appellant state their contention in this case in the following language:
In support of this contention, counsel cite us the following authorities: Section 2811, R. S. Mo. 1909; Holdsworth v. Shannon, 113 Mo. 508, 21 S. W. 85, 35 Am. St. Rep. 719; Young v. Scofield, 132 Mo. 650, 34 S. W. 497; Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. loc. cit. 294, 22 S. W. 623, 38 Am. St. Rep. 656; 13 Cyc. 594; Frost v. Beekman, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 288; Halsa v. Halsa, 8 Mo. 303; Sillyman v. King, 36 Iowa, 208; Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 293, 22 S. W. 623; Hogdon v. Green, 56 Iowa, 733, 10 N. W. 267; Rush v. Mitchell, 71 Iowa, 333, 32 N. W. 367; Hume v. Franzen, 73 Iowa, 25, 34 N. W. 490; Railroad v. Railroad, 116 Iowa, 681, 88 N. W. 1084.
Said section 2811 of our statute reads as follows:
"No such instrument in writing shall be valid, except between the parties thereto, and such as have actual notice thereof, until the same shall be deposited with the recorder for record."
Under the plain language of this statute, all deeds conveying real estate located in this state are invalid or void, except as between the parties thereto and such others as have actual notice thereof, until the deed is deposited for record. This brings us to the consideration of the question as to upon whom does the burden of proof rest in this class of cases? Counsel for appellant insist that it rests upon the respondent, while the latter contends that it rests upon the former.
In approaching this question, the statute before mentioned must be borne in mind, as it constitutes the line of demarcation between two well-known lines of cases dealing with bona fide purchasers without notice. It should also be remembered that the recording act was designed to have the record of land titles to carry absolute verity upon its face, except in the two instances mentioned, namely, between the parties to the deed and all others who have actual notice of the existence of the unrecorded deed; so, in all other cases where the record is fair upon its face, persons who purchase real estate relying upon that fact acquire a good title against the world, and before that title can be defeated it must be shown that such purchaser was either a party to the unrecorded deed or that he had actual notice thereof, and the burden of proving those facts rests upon those who claim under the unrecorded instrument, as will be shown by the authorities to be presently considered; otherwise, the record of land titles would be of but little, if any, benefit to any one in purchasing real estate.
We will now review the cases cited by counsel for appellant in support of their insistence.
The case of Halsa v. Halsa, 8 Mo. 303, did not involve the consideration of the statute in any manner, as none of the conveyances in that case were recorded. See last paragraph on page 307, of 8 Mo. After noting that fact, Judge Scott proceeded, and in substance said:
"Although it is well settled that a purchaser with notice of the equity of another from one who purchased without such notice may protect himself under the first purchaser, yet if there are suspicious circumstances attending the purchase which are unexplained, and the answer of the first purchaser is evasive and does not respond to all the material allegations of the bill, it may be inferred that the first purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser, and consequently the second purchaser will not be protected under the first."
This is the old and well-known chancery doctrine which is as old as the English jurisprudence, and therefore needs no further comment. Clearly, that case is not an authority in support of appellant's position, for in the case at bar the respondents' deed was recorded upon the day of its execution and unaccompanied with any suspicious facts or circumstances, whereas the Halsa Case was full of them.
Nor is the case of Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 117 Mo. 261, 22 S. W. 623, in point. That case did not involve the statute mentioned. The question there was: Did Mrs. Washington have an interest in the land, and was she defrauded out of it; and in discussing that question the court, speaking through Judge Sherwood, in substance said that Smith, the defendant, was not only blameworthy in his transactions with Mrs. Washington, but that he also occupied a fiduciary relation to her. The opinion then properly held, under those facts, that burden of proof rested upon Smith, the person who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. See pages 294 and 295 of 117 Mo., 22 S. W. 623.
The case of Young v. Schofield, 132 Mo. 650, 34 S. W. 497, was one in which the plaintiff, a brother of John C. Young, brought a suit to set aside a sheriff's deed conveying the land of the brother to the defendant in satisfaction of a judgment of $232.63. The grounds of plaintiff's claim were that he was a bona fide purchaser of the land from his brother for a valuable consideration paid without notice, etc. The facts were: The plaintiff was not only a brother of the judgment debtor, but also, after the levy of the execution and during the pending of the sale which afterwards culminated in the execution of the deed assailed, he purchased the land of his brother, as previously stated. Under those facts, the court held that the defense relied upon was an affirmative one, and that the burden of proving the same rested upon the defendant because of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case. That case was, in our opinion, correctly decided, but it is not in point in the case at bar, for in that case the statute was not involved, and all the facts and circumstances bore suspicion of fraud upon their face; whereas, no such facts or circumstances existed in this case. That case clearly is not in point.
Nor is the case of Holdsworth v. Shannon, 113 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lee & Boutell Co. v. Brockett Cement Co.
... ... 365; McMurry v. McMurry, 258 Mo. 405; Grove v. Heirs, 36 Mo. 523; Condit v. Maxwell, 142 Mo. 266; Ladd v. Anderson, 133 Mo. 625; Harrison v. Moore, 199 S.W. 188; Hayes v. Allenberger, 226 Mo. 119; Boogher v. Neece, 75 Mo. 383; Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 94; Strong v. Whylard, 204 Mo ... ...
-
National Refining Co. v. Continental Development Corp.
... ... 232, 252. (13) The recording act was designed to have the ... record of land titles carry absolute verity upon its face ... Harrison v. Moore, 199 S.W. 188. (14) Knowledge of ... an agent is not imputed to his principal when the agent acts ... for himself; in circumstances where ... ...
-
Pierpoint v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... Pierpoint, Jr., and Helen Powell, Appellants No. 38092 Supreme Court of Missouri January 4, 1943 ... Appeal ... from Harrison Circuit Court; Hon. V. C. Rose , Judge ... ... Reversed ... A ... F. Harvey for appellants ... ordinarily prudent person on inquiry, which only applies to ... prior unrecorded conveyances. Harrison v. Moore, 199 ... S.W. 188; Ladd v. Anderson, 133 Mo. 625. (3) ... Estoppel exists where a party has led another into the belief ... of a certain state ... ...
-
Sikes v. Turner
... ... 1919; Vance v. Corrigan, 78 Mo. 94; Trigg v ... Vermillion, 113 Mo. 231, 20 S.W. 1047; Todd v ... Anderson, 133 Mo. 625, 34 S.W. 872; Harrison v ... Moon, 199 S.W. 188; Strong v. Whybark, 204 Mo ... 341, 102 S.W. 968. (4) A subsequent purchaser for value takes ... title against a prior ... Vermillion et ... al., 113 Mo. 230, 20 S.W. 1047; Ladd et al. v ... Anderson et al., 133 Mo. 625, 34 S.W. 872; Harrison ... et al. v. Moore et al., 199 S.W. 188; Strong v ... Whybark et al., 204 Mo. 341, 102 S.W. 968; Fox v ... Hall, 74 Mo. 315; Boogher ... [247 S.W. 806] ... v ... ...