Leonard v. Shale

• Decision Date: 02 December 1915
• Docket Number: No. 17510.,17510.
• Citation: 181 S.W. 16
• Parties: LEONARD v. SHALE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

181 S.W. 16

LEONARD v. SHALE et al.

No. 17510.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

December 2, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; Wm. D. Rusk, Judge.

Action by Theodore C. Leonard against Solomon C. Shale and others to ascertain and determine title. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Shale appeals. Reversed, with directions.

C. W. Meyer, of St. Joseph, for appellant. John S. Boyer and Vinton Pike, both of St. Joseph, for respondent.

GRAVES, J.

Action to ascertain and determine title. Judgment below was for the plaintiff, and defendant has appealed. The facts relied upon by plaintiff are concisely stated in the petition thus:

"That the defendants claim to have some title, estate, or interest in said lands. That the plaintiff is informed, believes, and charges that the defendants' claim aforesaid is based upon a certain deed of trust made by Reid H. Huff to the defendant Charles W. Meyer, as trustee, to secure the payment of a note of said Huff to one William H. Wilson of the Philippine Islands in the amount of $1,500, payable three years after date, with interest at 5 per cent., which said deed of trust bears date November 3, 1909, was acknowledged before competent authority on said date, and recorded on the same date in the recorder's office of Buchanan county, in Book 391, at page 66 and 67. That the said Reid H. Huff, who made said deed, had no title, estate, or interest in said lands, but had fraudulently, wickedly, and surreptitiously obtained the semblance thereof by purloining from the custody of plaintiff's agent a deed which the plaintiff had made, signed, and acknowledged and intrusted to said agent for delivery to said Reid H. Huff, in the event that said Reid H. Huff should make a contemplated purchase of said lands. That said Huff did not purchase said lands or any part thereof or interest therein, and said deed has been, in a certain action brought by plaintiff against said Huff, declared to be null and void, by reason of its nondelivery to him, and the record thereof has been set aside and canceled. That said action and the decree therein was lately had and made in this court, in which action this plaintiff was the plaintiff, and the said Reid H. Huff was defendant, and wherein the said Reid H. Huff was duly served with process and appeared in said action. That the said note made by Reid H. Huff to said Wilson, and pretended to be secured by said deed of trust to the defendant Meyer, was not made and delivered upon any consideration whatever from said Wilson, but the name of said Wilson was used as a cover for a transaction between said Reid H. Huff and the defendant Shale, and that, while said note was made to said Wilson, it was intended for said Shale, and was by Wilson in form assigned and transferred to said Shale, who is now the owner and holder thereof."

The answer admits that Shale is the owner and holder of the deed of trust and note mentioned in the answer, and avers that the same was duly and properly executed. The answer also sets up the plea that Shale was a purchaser for value of said note, and without notice of any alleged defects in the proceedings. In terse terms, that he (Shale) was an innocent purchaser, for value. There was also in the answer facts pleaded tending to show an estoppel.

The pertinent facts are such as can be stated shortly. Plaintiff was not a resident of Missouri, but had a brother who lived in St. Joseph. Plaintiff resided at Cincinnati, Ohio. He owned this land in Buchanan county, which was under the immediate control of his brother, Dr. Leonard. In January, 1909, Dr. Leonard was sick at the residence of A. B. Huff in South St. Joseph. A. B. Huff was the father of Reid Huff, who figures conspicuously in this case. During the time Dr. Leonard was at the residence of A. B. Huff, some kind of a trade for this land and other lands belonging to Leonard's sisters was made. Dr. Leonard wrote the plaintiff to make out a deed to the 40 acres of land in question and inclose it in an envelope addressed on the outside to him (Dr. J. W. Leonard), and to inclose this in another envelope and address it to A. B. Huff, South St. Joseph, Mo., and mail it to A. B. Huff in that way. This was done. When Huff received the letter thus addressed, he evidently opened the letter to Dr. Leonard and took out the deed, and it was immediately placed of record without the knowledge or consent of either Dr. Leonard or the plaintiff. This deed conveyed the land to Reid H. Huff, and the Huffs took possession of the land. The deed was acknowledged in Ohio January 27, 1909, and recorded in St. Joseph January 29, 1909, or just two days later. In October, 1909, Reid H. Huff began to negotiate a loan on this land. The first arrangement was to get a loan of $1,500 from Wm. H. Wilson, then in the Philippine Islands, through his brother Sidney C. Wilson, an attorney at St. Joseph and an agent of Wm. H. Wilson. This was to be a 5 per cent. loan. Papers were accordingly drawn up, but Sidney C. Wilson found that he could get a better rate of interest for his brother, and the defendant Shale was induced to take the loan on this land. Accordingly, the note was assigned to Shale, and he put up the $1,500 which was received by Reid H. Huff, less the expenses of making the loan. There is no question of Shale being out $1,500. The plaintiff learned in April, 1909, that this deed had been placed of record, and Dr. Leonard, his agent, knew that it had been placed of record, about the date of its record. Shale says he had no knowledge of any trouble about the title until Leonard sued Reid H. Huff to cancel the deed. This was early in 1910. His suit was successful, and shortly thereafter the present suit was brought. Details will be left to the opinion. This outlines the case.

I. Upon this record it is quite clear that the possession and record of the deed from plaintiff to Reid H. Huff was wrongful. It appears to have been so held in a suit for its cancellation, in which judgment canceling it was entered. We start this case with that concession. A. B. Huff should have delivered plaintiff's deed to Dr. J. W. Leonard, and not to Reid H. Huff, as was evidently done. But this concession does not of itself justify the judgment nisi in the instant case.

II. The real questions in this case are (1) the good faith of Shale, and (2) the question of estoppel urged as against the plaintiff. We have read this record thoroughly, and there is no substantial evidence against the good faith of Shale. Nor is there substantial evidence tending to show that he had any knowledge of what happened between the...