Jones v. Real Estate Saving Inst.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Citation: 67 Mo. 109
• Parties: JONES v. REAL ESTATE SAVING INSTITUTION, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

67 Mo. 109

JONES

v.REAL ESTATE SAVING INSTITUTION, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

Martin & Lackland for appellant.

John F. Darby for respondent.

HENRY, J.

In 1862 plaintiffs owned a lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, bounded north by Jefferson street, west by Eleventh street, east by Tenth street, and south by an alley. There are five two-story brick houses and three frame houses on the lot. The improvements were made and the land bought partly with the money of the plaintiff, Julia Jones, but the title was in her husband, Lewis Jones, her co-plaintiff. On the 1st of December, 1862, Lewis Jones borrowed of defendant $5,650, for which he gave his note, payable three years after its date, with interest from its maturity at ten per cent. per annum, and six semi-annual interest notes, each for $282.50, all secured by a deed of trust conveying the above described property to Jno. M. Krum. Porter & Wolf afterwards--until about 1867--and then Levering & Webster were the agents of plaintiffs, to collect their rents, pay taxes, &c. These agents collected the rents, and from time to time, deposited the same with defendant, to be applied in payment of the interest notes. Marcus A. Wolf had a judgment against Lewis Jones for $885 and costs, and was about to have the property above described sold on execution, when, by an arrangement between plaintiffs and defendant, the defendant procured an assignment from said Wolf of said judgment, to the defendant, and afterwards purchased the property at a sale under an execution, issued on Wolf's judgment. The plaintiffs had money on deposit with defendant, within $40 or $50 of the amount of said judgment, with which said assignment was procured.

After this purchase, in 1869, the defendant had the property advertised for sale by the trustee, Jno. M. Krum, to satisfy the indebtedness secured by the deed of trust to Krum, and in their petition, plaintiffs alleged that there was an agreement between them and the defendant that the latter should purchase the property and hold it until the satisfaction of their debt out of the rents of the property, and then convey it to Julia. In November, 1872, the defendant sold and conveyed all of said property to Henry Digby, for the consideration of $10,000, and the plaintiffs charged in their petition that Digby purchased with notice of their equity, and asked to be permitted to redeem said land, and for general relief.

On the trial, the court submitted to a jury, the following issues:

First. Did the Real Estate Saving Institution purchase the property described in the petition, at sheriff's sale, and agree with the plaintiffs, at the time of said sale, to hold said property in trust for them, until the rents of the same should pay the debt mentioned in the petition, or until said property should be otherwise redeemed by the plaintiffs?

Second. Did the Real Estate Saving Institution purchase the property described in the petition, at trustee's sale, and agree with the plaintiffs, at the time of said trustee's sale, to hold said property in trust for them until the rents of the same should pay the debt mentioned in the petition, or until said property should be otherwise redeemed by the plaintiffs?

Third. Did defendant, Henry Digby, prior to his purchase of the property in question, from the said Real Estate Saving Institution, have any notice of the alleged private agreement or understanding between said institution and plaintiffs, as charged in the petition?

To the first and second issues, the jury said “Yes.” To the third issue, they said “No.”

With the Digby branch of the case, we have now nothing to do. That controversy has been determined by us in another cause, at this...