Manifold v. Jones
| Decision Date | 31 January 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,112 |
| Parties | Manifold et al. v. Jones |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Madison Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
M. S Robinson and J. W. Lovett, for appellants.
C. L Henry and H. C. Ryan, for appellee.
The complaint of the plaintiff, here the appellee, is a complaint in the ordinary form to quiet title. The facts pleaded in the second paragraph of the answer and in the cross-complaint are substantially the same, and we give a synopsis of the facts stated in the answer. The facts pleaded are, in substance, these: Conrad Crossley died the owner in fee of the land in controversy. He left a will containing, among others, these provisions:
These are the only portions of the will set forth in the pleadings. Corydon W. Crossley was named as executor, the will was duly admitted to probate and he duly qualified. Corydon W. Crossley, after the testator's death, took possession of the land devised to him under the provisions of the will. Subsequently, he conveyed the land to James Jones, and by successive conveyances the land was conveyed to James H. Jones, the appellee. The sum of two thousand dollars mentioned in the will has not been paid, although more than ten years have elapsed since the will was admitted to probate. The cross-complaint principally differs from the answer in its prayer, for it prays that a lien for the sum mentioned in the will may be established and enforced. The first paragraph of the reply alleges that Corydon W. Crossley charged himself as executor with the sum of two thousand dollars, and that in purchasing the property the purchaser relied upon this act. The second paragraph of the reply also avers that Corydon W. Crossley charged himself as executor with the sum mentioned in the will, that the purchaser relied upon this act, and it further avers that the estate is yet unsettled; that he has fully settled with his mother, the widow of the testator, and that he has paid her all the money due her under the will and accounted to her for all property bequeathed to her. The third paragraph of the reply avers that the settlement was made with the widow.
An action to quiet title brings before the court the claims of all the parties, and they must be set up in that action. If there is a valid outstanding lien or title the plaintiff must fail, because he is not entitled to a decree cutting off such lien or title. Indiana, etc., R. W. Co. v. Allen, 113 Ind. 308, 15 N.E. 451.
If, therefore, there was a valid lien subsisting in favor of the appellants, the answer is good and the replies are all bad.
We have no doubt that the will charged the land devised to Corydon W. Crossley, nor do we doubt that this lien, unless paid or discharged, continued in force in favor of the estate of the testator as against purchasers from Corydon W. Crossley, for, as the will is one link in their chain of title, they are chargeable with knowledge of its provisions. Porter v. Jackson, 95 Ind. 210, and cases cited.
The leading question presented by the first and second paragraphs of the reply is, was the lien paid or discharged? The will makes the sum charged on the land payable to the estate, and when it was paid to the estate the lien was extinguished. The first and second paragraphs of the reply show, in our judgment, that the sum charged on the land was paid. This we affirm for the reason that Corydon W. Crossley, the executor named in the will, represented the estate, and payment to him was payment to the estate. When he charged himself as executor with that sum, he paid the charge on the land, and thenceforth he and his sureties were liable on his bond. Bona fide purchasers, at all events, had a right to rely on his acts, for he represented the estate of the testator, and to no one else could payment have been rightfully made.
The questions presented by the third paragraph of the reply, while they mingle with those presented by the first and second paragraphs, are more difficult than the question we have discussed and decided.
The complaint avers that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of the land; that, although the defendants claim some interest in it, they have no title or interest nor any lien. These averments imply that the plaintiff owns the entire estate, free from any and all claims of the defendants. Indiana, etc., R. W. Co. v. Allen, 113 Ind. 581, 15 N. E. 446; Dumont v. Dufore, 27 Ind. 263.
The answer, if it avoids these allegations at all, avoids them, upon the theory of counsel, by showing that a third person has a lien; it does not show, however, that such a person has any title. The general rule is that a plaintiff in such an action as this must recover upon the strength of his own title, but we can not perceive how this rule can apply where the defendant does no more than show an outstanding lien in a third person who is not a party to the action. An answer by a party to the action, which confesses that the fee is in the plaintiff, may, pro tanto, defeat the action, where it shows that the defendant holds a lien; that is, it may, at least, secure to the lienholder a provision in the decree reserving, protecting or enforcing his lien. This, however, is not the case here, for the answer confesses that the fee is in the plaintiff, and that a stranger holds an outstanding lien. We suppose that a plaintiff owning the fee may have his title quieted as against the persons made defendants, although a person not a party to the action may have a lien which he could enforce. The lien does not affect the title further than to create a burden on the land, for the owner of the fee has a perfect title as against all persons except the holder of the lien, and even as against the lienholder he has the title, subject only to the lien.
As the record presents this case, the plaintiff owns the fee, subject to a lien in a third person, and we can not conceive of any principle which will enable the defendants to employ that lien to defeat the owner of the fee. The plaintiff has title even as against the lienholder, subject, of course, to the lien, but not subject to the claims of any other person than the lienholder. The lienholder could unquestionably employ his lien to defeat a decree completely barring his rights; he could not, however, use it to directly and effectually destroy title. The lien is a claim that may be enforced, but it does not constitute a title to the land.
Regarding the claim created by the will as a lien, it must be held that, upon the facts stated in the pleadings, the only person who can enforce it is the representative of the testator, since the will expressly provides that the money shall be paid to his estate. There may possibly be cases where devisees, legatees or heirs can enforce a lien for money due the estate of a testator, but no such case is made by the answer. The general rule is that only the administrator or the executor can enforce such a lien, and to take a case out of this general rule, if that be conceded to be possible, facts constituting the case an exception must be pleaded. Humphries v. Davis, 100 Ind. 369; Williams v. Riley, 88 Ind. 290; Begien v. Freeman, 75 Ind. 398; Westerfield v. Spencer, 61 Ind. 339; Ferguson v. Barnes, 58 Ind. 169.
We know of no rule that will permit heirs to enforce a lien where there is an executor, unless there is some allegation showing a neglect of duty on the part of the executor. Granting that the heirs may enforce a lien where the executor neglects or refuses to do his duty, they must, at least show such neglect or refusal. We do not, however, assert that such an allegation would be sufficient, for it is enough to here declare that without such an allegation the heirs or devisees certainly have no such right. The answer before us does not contain this, or any similar allegation. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial