Maudru v. Humphreys
| Decision Date | 04 February 1919 |
| Citation | 98 S.E. 259,83 W.Va. 307 |
| Parties | MAUDRU v. HUMPHREYS ET AL. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted January 21, 1919.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a vendor, having good title and capacity to perform, makes a valid enforceable contract for the sale of land, and thereafter, and before a deed is executed passing the legal title, a fire destroys a building thereon, without his fault or neglect, the loss is sustained by the purchaser. In such case there is no implied warranty that the condition of the property at the time of sale shall continue until after deed is made.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
There being no privity of estate between an administrator and the heirs, a judgment against the administrator is not a lien on the lands in the hands of the heirs.
There being no privity of estate between an administrator and the heirs, a judgment against the administrator is not even prima facie evidence of debt against the heirs.
After the execution of a valid contract of sale and before the legal title passes by deed, the vendor is regarded in equity as the holder of legal title in trust for the purchaser, and the latter as holding the purchase money in trust for the vendor.
After the execution of a valid contract of sale and before the legal title passes by deed, the purchaser has a vendible interest, an equitable estate which at his death descends to his heirs in the same manner as a legal estate.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cabell County.
Suit in equity by Joseph Maudru against G. L. Humphreys administrator, etc., James T. Mynes, and others. Decree for plaintiff, and the administrator and James T. Mynes appeal. Reversed, and bill dismissed.
C. E Copen, of Winfield, for appellants.
R. L Blackwood and C. W. Freeman, both of Huntington, for appellee.
This suit in equity was instituted by Joseph Maudru against the administrator and heirs at law of James T. Mynes, deceased to recover damages for the loss of a house by fire after a valid contract for the exchange of lands had been made between said Maudru and Mynes and before deeds were executed. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendants prosecute this appeal.
Joseph Maudru resided in Colorado, and James T. Mynes in Cuba. The former owned a one-third undivided interest in a tract of about 3,000 acres of land in Cuba, and the latter a number of houses and lots in the city of Huntington, W.Va. By a writing dated September 13, 1910, they contracted to exchange lands, Maudru agreeing to convey his Cuban property in exchange for certain ones of Mynes' houses and lots in Huntington, the properties to be conveyed by general warranty deeds and free from all liens and incumbrances.
Mynes' deed to Maudru for the Huntington property bears date December 28, 1910, was acknowledged February 23d, and recorded March 23, 1911. The deed from Maudru to Mynes for the Cuban property was executed by J. S. Jump, attorney in fact for Maudru, April 8, 1911. The fire occurred January 24, 1911, without default of either party.
J. S. Jump, attorney in fact, knew the house had been burned before he executed Maudru's deed to Mynes and says he told Mynes that Maudru would hold him responsible for the loss, but it does not appear what Mynes' reply was, if anything. C. L. Humphreys was looking after the Huntington property for Mynes until the exchange was completed, and produced a receipt for $55, bearing date May 1, 1911, signed by C. W. Freeman, who had become Maudru's agent to collect the rents. This receipt states that it is "for house rent collected for Joseph Maudru since transfer of J. T. Mynes to him," and Humphreys swears it included rent for the house that burned. Just when Maudru learned the house was burned does not appear. But he wrote a letter, dated Brush, Colo., April 17, 1911, addressed to C. L. Humphreys, Huntington, W. Va., in which he says:
And on the 24th of the same month he again wrote Humphreys, acknowledging receipt of a letter of April 20th, in which he was told by Humphreys that no insurance was carried by Mynes on any of his houses, and further said:
This evidence shows that Maudru collected rents after he had knowledge of the destruction of the house, if that fact is material. Apparently he supposed the loss was covered by fire insurance and he could get the benefit of it. But Mynes carried no insurance, nor did his contract of sale obligate him to do so.
Mynes' title to all the Huntington lots seems to have been perfect, except lot No. 36, block 189, not the one on which the burnt house was located. A defect in the title to this particular lot existed on account of the failure of J. F. Brown to unite with his wife, Rebecca Brown, in a deed from her bearing date January 17, 1898, to Eliza A. Mynes, through whom James T. Mynes traced title. This defect, however, was cured by a deed made by said Rebecca Brown and her husband direct to Joseph Maudru on April 12, 1911.
In September, 1914, Maudru instituted an action at law against C. L. Humphreys, administrator of James T. Mynes, deceased, to recover damages for the destruction of the house on the theory that its occurrence prior to the execution of the deed rendered the vendor liable, and on October 15, 1915, recovered a judgment for $1,500. No writ of error was taken to this judgment, and a fieri facias was issued and returned "No property."
The parties agreed that the evidence taken in the trial of that action might be read and considered as evidence by Commissioner T. J. Bryan, to whom this cause was referred to report upon certain matters, and such evidence was read and considered by him. He found and reported that the house destroyed by fire was worth $1,500 as of October 15, 1915 the date of the judgment, to which sum he added interest to the date of his report,...
To continue reading
Request your trial