Houx v. Cnty. of Bates

• Decision Date: 31 October 1875
• Citation: 61 Mo. 391
• Parties: OLIVER HOUX, Plaintiff in Error, v. COUNTY OF BATES, et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

61 Mo. 391

OLIVER HOUX, Plaintiff in Error,

v.COUNTY OF BATES, et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1875.

Error to Vernon Circuit Court.

T. J. Galloway, with W. P. Johnson, for Plaintiff in Error.

The county of Bates, for a valuable consideration admitted by her to have been paid, undertook to convey the property by a proper description to Leonard Dodge, through whom plaintiffs claim. Though in a court of law the description was defective, yet in a court of equity, which deems as done that which the party agreed to do, the grantee had title to the land intended to be described, and as against Bates county, was entitled to have the mistake corrected. (Rhodes vs. Outcalt, 48 Mo., 372.)

The deed made by the commissioner is in effect the deed of the county, and is distinguishable from deeds made under purely statutory powers, such as deeds made by sheriffs under executions, which are always against the will of the judgment debtor, and are not inter partes.

Page & Holcomb, for Defendant in Error.

A court of equity cannot reform a defective execution of a statutory power. (Moreau vs. Detchemendy, 18 Mo., 522-531; Moreau vs. Branham, 27 Mo., 357; Allen vs. Moss, 27 Mo., 354; Speck vs. Wohlien, 22 Mo., 316; Hubble vs. Vaughn, 42 Mo., 138; Abernathy vs. Dennis, 49 Mo., 468.)

A deed made by a county seat commissioner is an execution of a statutory power. (R. C. 1855, ch. 44, §§ 11, 14; ch. 44, § 20.)NAPTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a petition to the circuit court to have corrected a supposed error in a deed from the commissioner of Bates county to one Leonard Dodge, administrator of the estate of Cyrus K. Dodge.

The facts as they appear from the petition and answer, will explain fully the points upon which a judgment for the defendant was ultimately rendered. It is true the answer was stricken out, and all the evidence offered in support of it rejected, but we may assume that the facts are correctly stated, considering the motion to strike out in the nature of a demurrer.

In 1857, the county commissioner of Bates county sold two pieces of ground in the town of Butler, known as blocks 52 and 53, to Cyrus K. Dodge for $110, for which he gave his note. Cyrus K. Dodge died soon thereafter, and Leonard Dodge was appointed his administrator, and out of the assets of the estate said administrator paid the principal and interest on this debt and obtained a receipt from the commissioner, who executed a deed to said Leonard Dodge, administrator aforesaid, which deed is the same it is now proposed by the plaintiff to have corrected. Leonard Dodge died in 1858 or 1859, and the plaintiff obtained a deed from his heirs in 1870.

Previous to this last date, one White was appointed administrator de bonis non of the estate of Cyrus K. Dodge, and by order of the probate court was directed to sell blocks 52 and 53. A sale was made, and Page (who applied to be made a co-defendant in this case) bought the lots or blocks for $210, paid the purchase money, and received from White a deed for the blocks. He also obtained about the same time a deed from the then commissioner of Bates county.

The court struck out all the answer that related to Page's title, and excluded all the evidence concerning Page's title, but gave a judgment for defendants on the ground that a court of equity had no power to correct mistakes made in a deed executed under a statutory power.

This judgment must be affirmed, because, whether the doctrine maintained by the court, concerning the execution of statutory powers, was applicable to the facts of the case or not, the plaintiff undoubtedly had no claim to assistance from a court of equity, if any aid was really necessary to explain the subject matter of the deed to the administrator, Dodge.

The deed to Leonard Dodge, administrator, whatever its effect might be in law, was certainly not designed to invest him and his heirs with title, as the lots were bought by Cyrus K. Dodge, and paid for out of his estate, and in equity would go to his heirs, subject of course to be sold for payment of his debts, if there were any.

But the court, I think, erred in excluding the answer and evidence, and in holding that this was a case for the applica-of the principle referred to as the basis of his judgment.

The principle is stated succinctly, but carefully, by Judge Story in his Treatise on Equity (vol. 1, § 177). It is there said: “And indeed it may be stated, as generally although not universally true, that the remedial power of courts of equity does not extend to the supplying of any circumstance for the want of which the legislature has declared the instrument void; for, otherwise,...