Hope v. Blair

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMacfarlane
Citation16 S.W. 595,105 Mo. 85
Decision Date02 June 1891
PartiesHOPE v. BLAIR.
16 S.W. 595
105 Mo. 85
HOPE
v.
BLAIR.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
June 2, 1891.

RES ADJUDICATA — ATTACHMENT — QUITCLAIM — EJECTMENT.

1. Where a bill in equity against a husband and wife charges that she was the owner of certain lands as her separate estate, and executed a note to the plaintiff, thereby charging the land for its payment, and the court finds the facts to be as stated and decrees a sale of the land, the sale cannot be collaterally attacked on the ground that the wife's title to the land was a simple legal estate, which could not be charged for debts contracted by her.

2. The lien of an attachment is confined to the debtor's interest in the land, and notice to the purchaser at the sale on execution will give priority to unrecorded deeds and equities against the land.

[16 S.W. 596]

3. A purchaser by quitclaim deed of land held by a wife as her separate estate takes subject to the equitable lien of a debt contracted by her husband made a charge on the land, though the instrument by which the charge was created is not recorded.

4. A defendant in ejectment cannot complain of the admission of a copy of a deed, without proof of the loss of the original, which is a necessary link in one of two chains of title under which he claims.

5. In ejectment under a claim for damages "to the amount of $100, and accruing rents and profits at $10 a month," the damages recoverable are not limited to $100, but may include the rent and profits down to the time of assessing the same.

Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county; THOMAS H. BACON, Judge.

W. O. L. Jewett and C. L. King, for appellant. R. P. Giles, for respondent.

MACFARLANE, J.


Ejectment to recover possession of the E. ½, lot 9, in Taylor & Towson's addition to Shelbina. Answer, general denial. It was admitted on the trial that Julia A. Wilson, wife of Newton Wilson, was the common source of title, and that defendant was, at the commencement of the suit and at the trial, in the possession of the property. Plaintiff offered in evidence the records and proceedings of the circuit court of Shelby county in a suit by plaintiff herein, as guardian of some minor children, against Julia A. Wilson and her husband, commenced on the 4th day of February, 1885. This record shows that on the 17th day of August, 1883, Julia A. Wilson was the owner of the land as her separate estate in equity, and on said day she executed and delivered to plaintiff, as guardian, her note for $500, intending to charge and thereby charging said land for the payment thereof. Personal service was had on defendant Julia A., and notice by publication on her husband. Notice lis pendens was filed on the day the suit was commenced, and was duly recorded. The court found the facts to be as charged in the petition, and a decree was entered accordingly. Under a sale on execution upon this decree plaintiff purchased the land, and claims title under the sheriff's deed, which was read in evidence. Plaintiff offered evidence of damages, rents, and profits, and rested. Defendant then read in evidence a deed from Newton Wilson and wife conveying the lot in controversy to John T. Hopkins, dated August 28, 1884, filed August 28, 1884. Also note and all the papers in an attachment suit brought January 7, 1885, by defendant Berolzheimer against John T. Hopkins, in which the lot in controversy was attached, judgment obtained, and sale of lot under same. Sheriff's deed also read conveying lot to Berolzheimer; sale under this attachment regular; deed dated April 7, 1886. Defendant next read the record of a deed from S. C. Gunby and wife to Julia A. Wilson, dated July 27, 1883, and filed August 20, 1883. This is a warranty deed in usual form, conveying simply a legal title, with no statement in reference to a separate estate. Then defendant read a deed from Julia Wilson and husband to Samuel Kennerly, dated January 3, 1885, filed April 9, 1885. This was a quitclaim deed, and contained the following recital. "It is hereby understood by and between the parties hereto that this deed is made subject to a certain deed of trust in favor of George Hope given by Julia A. Wilson in August, 1883, to secure the payment of five hundred dollars." Then defendant read deed from Samuel Kennerly and wife to Berolzheimer, dated April 7, 1886, filed April 12, 1886. In rebuttal plaintiff offered to read the record of a deed from J. T. Hopkins and wife to Julia A. Wilson, dated December 25, 1884, and filed the same day. This record was objected to as evidence for the reason that the deed did not appear to have been acknowledged. To prove the execution of the deed plaintiff called L. A. Hayward, who testified that he was deputy-recorder and knew the handwriting of J. T. Hopkins. When asked if he knew of the filing of a deed by him on December 25, 1884, from him and wife to Julia A. Wilson, he answered: "I think the deed came by mail. I recorded the deed. My recollection is it was his handwriting and signed by him; that he had made search for the original deed and could not find it; might have sent it to Shelbina to a man named Jordon. In my judgment this is the deed. Signature to deed, my recollection is, was Hopkins'." Upon this proof the court permitted the record to be read as a copy of a lost deed. This deed contained the same recital as the deed to Kennerly. Plaintiff proved that at the date of the note (August 17, 1883,) Julia A. Wilson was in possession of the property.

1. Defendant contends that the only title to the lot shown to have been held by Julia A. Wilson at the time the note sued upon was executed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
79 practice notes
  • Malone v. Meres
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 30, 1926
    ...Am. St. Rep. 219, 3 Ann. Cas. 966; State v. Smith, 29 R.I. 513, 72 A. 710; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, 19 L.Ed. 931; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 16 S.W. 595, 24 Am. St. Rep. 366; Dow v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 158, 25 L.Ed. 632. 'Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with t......
  • Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, Civil 1385
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • December 29, 1914
    ...v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17; Rosenheim v. Harstock, 90 Mo. 357, 365, 2 S.W. 473; State v. Railway Co., 100 Mo. 59, 13 S.W. 398; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 93, 16 S.W. 595 [24 Am. St. Rep. 366]; Musick v. Railway Co., 114 Mo. 309, 315, 21 S.W. 491. Wherever the right and the duty of the court to......
  • Robinson v. Field, No. 35168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 26, 1938
    ...Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S.W. 545; Evans v. Gibson, 29 Mo. 223; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 93, 16 S.W. 595; Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633, 85 S.W. 868; State v. Brown, 31 S.W. (2d) 217; Schneider v. Patton, 75 S.W. 155, 175 Mo. 684; Howard v. Sc......
  • Bridger v. Exchange Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 16, 1906
    ...94, 105, 15 L.Ed. 833; Allen v. Halliday (C. C.) 28 F. 261; Cotton v. Dacey (C. C.) 61 F. 481; Freeman on Judgments, § 205; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 16 S.W. 595, 24 Am.St.Rep. 366; Watson v. Wilson, 2 Dana (Ky.) 406, 26 Am.Dec. 459; Ettenborough v. Bishop, 26 N.J.Eq. 262; McCauley v. Roge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
79 cases
  • Malone v. Meres
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 30, 1926
    ...Am. St. Rep. 219, 3 Ann. Cas. 966; State v. Smith, 29 R.I. 513, 72 A. 710; Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308, 19 L.Ed. 931; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 16 S.W. 595, 24 Am. St. Rep. 366; Dow v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 158, 25 L.Ed. 632. 'Jurisdiction of the subject-matter is the power to deal with t......
  • Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson, Civil 1385
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • December 29, 1914
    ...v. Weatherby, 45 Mo. 17; Rosenheim v. Harstock, 90 Mo. 357, 365, 2 S.W. 473; State v. Railway Co., 100 Mo. 59, 13 S.W. 398; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 93, 16 S.W. 595 [24 Am. St. Rep. 366]; Musick v. Railway Co., 114 Mo. 309, 315, 21 S.W. 491. Wherever the right and the duty of the court to......
  • Robinson v. Field, No. 35168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 26, 1938
    ...Charles v. White, 214 Mo. 187, 112 S.W. 545; Evans v. Gibson, 29 Mo. 223; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 93, 16 S.W. 595; Stark v. Kirchgraber, 186 Mo. 633, 85 S.W. 868; State v. Brown, 31 S.W. (2d) 217; Schneider v. Patton, 75 S.W. 155, 175 Mo. 684; Howard v. Sc......
  • Bridger v. Exchange Bank
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • November 16, 1906
    ...94, 105, 15 L.Ed. 833; Allen v. Halliday (C. C.) 28 F. 261; Cotton v. Dacey (C. C.) 61 F. 481; Freeman on Judgments, § 205; Hope v. Blair, 105 Mo. 85, 16 S.W. 595, 24 Am.St.Rep. 366; Watson v. Wilson, 2 Dana (Ky.) 406, 26 Am.Dec. 459; Ettenborough v. Bishop, 26 N.J.Eq. 262; McCauley v. Roge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT