Loring v. Groomer

• Citation: 142 Mo. 1,43 S.W. 647
• Parties: LORING v. GROOMER.
• Decision Date: 07 December 1897
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

43 S.W. 647

142 Mo. 1

LORING v. GROOMER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 7, 1897.

TAX DEEDS — VALIDITY — EVIDENCE — HOMESTEAD — TIME OF ACQUIRING — EXTENT OF RIGHT.

1. A tax deed which is a mere skeleton, and contains no recitals showing that the statutory requirements have been complied with, is void on its face.

2. Where a tax deed is void on its face, a quitclaim deed by the grantee in the tax deed is not admissible in evidence in favor of one claiming under such deeds.

3. The homestead law of 1865 (section 1) exempted from execution the homestead of every housekeeper or head of a family, consisting of the dwelling, etc., and the land used in connection therewith, not exceeding a certain amount and value, used by him as such homestead. Section 7 provided that such homestead should be subject to levy on all causes of action existing at the time of acquiring it; and for this purpose such time should be the date of the filing in the proper office for the records of deeds the deed of such homestead, and (in case of existing states) such homestead should not be subject on any liability thereafter created. Held, that a housekeeper or head of a family did not acquire a homestead in land used as such at the time he inherited it, since he had no deed to file in the recorder's office.

4. Nor did he acquire a homestead, within section 7, at the time land inherited by him and others was partitioned, where the report of the commissioners in partition was not filed in the recorder's office.

5. Where one was not a housekeeper or head of a family at the time he inherited land, or at the time of otherwise acquiring the land, he could not acquire a homestead in the land simply by becoming the head of a family or housekeeper.

6. Under Acts 1887, p. 197, amending the homestead law so as to exempt homesteads acquired by descent or devise from levy on all causes of action accruing after the acquisition of such homestead, whatever land a houskeeper or head of a family was occupying with his family and using as a homestead, not exceeding the amount and value limited by such homestead law, at the time such amendatory act was passed, became exempt as to all causes of action accruing thereafter, irrespective of how the title was acquired, or whether the title was in him or his wife.

Appeal from circuit court, Dekalb county.

Action by Samuel G. Loring against Lina Groomer. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

S. G. Loring, in pro. per. Hewitt & Blair, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

This is a suit in equity by plaintiff, who claims to have acquired all of the title of one Christopher L. Groomer to the lands in litigation by virtue of a sheriff's deed, to set aside as fraudulent and void two deeds to different parts of said lands, executed by said Christopher to the defendant, who was then, and is now, his wife; and to be placed in possession of said lands. Defendant, in her answer, denied generally the allegations in the petition, and then averred that, at the time of the execution of the deeds by Christopher L. Groomer to her, he had acquired the title to the lands, and was in the occupancy thereof, together with his wife, this defendant, claiming the same as a homestead, and that said lands do not exceed 160 acres in area, nor the value of $1,500. The trial resulted in a judgment for defendant, and a decree in her favor setting aside the sheriff's deed to plaintiff. In due time thereafter plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, which, being overruled, he appeals.

The facts are as follows: Some time prior to the year 1871, William J. Groomer died, intestate, at the county of Dekalb, in the state of Missouri, leaving surviving him his widow, Sarah, and the following children, viz.: William R., David A., Logan P., Richard R., Christopher L., and America J., as his only heirs at law. America J. thereafter intermarried with William W. Bratcher. At the time of his death, William J. Groomer was the owner in fee of a tract of land in said county, containing about 700 acres, which included the N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 14, township 60, range 30. On September 10, 1871, David Groomer, Sr., conveyed by deed to the heirs of said William J. Groomer a tract of land in said county, of which the W. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of section 11, township, 60, range 30, in said county, was part. This deed was duly recorded in the recorder's office of said county in September, 1871. In 1872, William R. Groomer and David A. Groomer began suit in the circuit court of said county against Sarah Groomer, the widow, and Logan P., Richard R., America J., and Christopher L., for partition of the lands which they inherited from their father, William J. Groomer, and the lands conveyed to them by David Groomer, Sr., viz.: The N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 14, township 60, range 30, and the W. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of section 11, township 60, range 30, — the lands in question; the 40-acre tract in section 14 having been acquired by inheritance, and the 80-acre tract in section 11 by deed from David Groomer, Sr. By the report of the commissioners in the partition suit, filed at the March term, 1872, of the Dekalb county circuit court, the W. ½ of the S. E. ¼ of section 11, township 60, range 30, was partitioned and allotted to Christopher L. Groomer, and other lands to the other parties, according to their respective interests. At the same term of said court it was adjudged and decreed by the court that the title to the lands described in the said report "be, and the same is hereby, vested in the parties to whom said lands are partitioned and allotted." It does not appear, however, from the record, that any part of the N. E. ¼ of section 14, township 60, range 30 (part of the laud inherited from the father, William J. Groomer), was partitioned or allotted by the commissioners, although petitioned for. On the 30th day of September, 1875, Christopher L. Groomer acquired by mesne conveyances the title to three-sixths of the said N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 14, township 60, range 30, the same being the one-sixth interest of each of the following named heirs of William J. Groomer, deceased, viz. William R. Groomer, America J. Bratcher (formerly Groomer) and husband, and David A. Groomer, which, together with the one-sixth he inherited, vested in him absolutely four-sixths interest in the said 40 acres. On January 2, 1871, one James Ewart purchased the said N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 14 at a collector's sale for the delinquent taxes for the year 1867, and received a deed from the said collector, which said deed was duly recorded on January 2, 1871, in the recorder's office of the said Dekalb county. On April 6, 1877, the said Ewart conveyed to the said Christopher L. Groomer, in consideration of $60, the said N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ by deed of quitclaim in the usual form, which said deed was duly acknowledged and recorded April 6, 1871, in the recorder's office of Dekalb county. Christopher L. Groomer, the husband of the defendant, entered upon the lands in question — the 80 acres in section 11, and the 25 acres in section 14 — March 8, 1877, erected a small dwelling on the 25-acre tract, and fenced it, and cleared up a part of the 80 in section 11, and fenced...