Ladd v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 24 March 1896 |
| Parties | Ladd et al. v. Anderson et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Stoddard Circuit Court. -- Hon. John G. Wear, Judge.
Affirmed.
T. J Mauldin and Thomas Connelly with Linus Sanford for appellants.
(1) The evidence shows that the deed of appellants is perfect, as well as first in point of time, and executed for a part of the consideration to be paid for the land. Then they have the superior equity. 1 Story's Equity, sec. 176 [8 Ed.], and cases cited. (2) A chancery court never interferes to aid a mistake by correcting a deed, except where a superior equity is shown. Appellees acquired no rights under their deed because they have no descriptions of the land. They have no equity. 1 Story's Equity [8 Ed.], sec. 176; Bingham's Equity, sec. 182; Tiedeman's Equity, secs. 22, 23, and 40; Waterman on Specific Performance, sec. 384. (3) But we have added to the first deed of trust a vendor's lien for part of the purchase money. This alone would give us the superior right. Turk v. Funk, 68 Mo. 18; Rogers v. Tucker, 94 Mo. 346; 2 Pingrey on Real Estate, sec 827; 2 Pomeroy's Equity, sec. 724. It may be admitted, for all the purposes of this case, that both creditors Birchfield and Mathews have been acting in good faith. Certainly appellants can be charged with no laches, except a failure to file the mortgage for record. Any notice to Boughton is notice to Mathews, especially as Boughton conducted all of his business. He who refuses to investigate is chargeable with notice, and any such notice of a claim as will put reasonable men on their guard is notice of all such matters as a full and fair investigation will disclose. Rhodes v. Outcalt, 48 Mo. 367; Maupin v. Connors, 47 Mo. 306. But the deed to Ladd as trustee for Mathews does not describe the land, and appellant can not be chargeable with notice. Cass County v. Oldham, 75 Mo. 50.
Wilson Cramer for respondents.
(1) Mathews' right to have the deed reformed is not debatable. (2) Birchfield, by delivering his deed to Anderson before even his own deal with him was completed, and by withholding his deed of trust from record, put it in the power of Anderson to obtain the loan from Mathews on his apparent unincumbered ownership of the land. (3) It is conceded that the taking of a deed of trust from Anderson did not destroy Birchfield's vendor's lien, but respondents insist that it would be inequitable and unjust under the circumstances to permit this lien to take precedence of Mathews' claim. To do so would be to give Birchfield $ 300 of Mathews' money besides the entire land as security for the $ 900 due from Anderson, and cause Mathews to lose the $ 200 retained by Anderson. (4) The deed of trust to Mathews was recorded October 23, 1889, while the one given to Birchfield for the unpaid purchase money was not recorded till November 2, 1889, and it is shown that Mathews had no notice of the latter. The case therefore falls within the rule laid down in the case of Trigg v. Vermillion, 113 Mo. 230. (5) All of the parties concerned were brought before the court, and the court, having full jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter, did right in determining their respective interests and making a complete disposition of the matters involved.
One Anderson Birchfield by warranty deed dated the eighteenth of October, 1889, and recorded on the twenty-third day of October, 1889, conveyed to the defendant James P. Anderson "the south half of lot 1 of the southwest quarter, and the south half of lot 2 of the southwest quarter, of section 6, township 24, range 10 , containing seventy-nine and sixty-four hundredths acres" in Stoddard county. The said defendant James P. Anderson by his deed dated the eighteenth day of October, 1889, conveyed the said real estate to James Birchfield, in trust to secure the payment to said Anderson Birchfield of three promissory notes of that date, each for the sum of $ 300, payable to his order with ten per cent interest; one on the first day of January, 1892, one on the first day of January, 1895, and the other on the first day of January, 1897. This trust deed was acknowledged the same day, and filed for record and recorded on the second day of November, 1889. The said defendant James P. Anderson by another deed dated the twenty-first day of October, 1889, conveyed to the plaintiff, F. M. Ladd, the south half of the southwest quarter of section 6, township 24, range 9, in Stoddard county, in trust to secure the payment to plaintiff Charles D. Mathews of three promissory notes of that date -- one for $ 100, payable two years after date, one for $ 200, payable three years after date, and one for $ 200, payable four years after date, all bearing ten per cent interest. This trust deed was acknowledged the same day, and filed for record and recorded on the twenty-second day of October, 1889.
On the fourth of August, 1890, the said Ladd and Mathews instituted this suit...
To continue reading
Request your trial