Millerson v. T. W. Doherty Land & Cattle Co

• Decision Date: 22 May 1922
• Docket Number: 22183
• Citation: 241 S.W. 907
• Parties: MILLERSON et al. v. T. W. DOHERTY LAND & CATTLE CO
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

241 S.W. 907

MILLERSON et al. v. T. W. DOHERTY LAND & CATTLE CO

No. 22183

Supreme Court of Missouri

May 22, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge. Suit by Emma Millerson and another against the T. W. Doherty Land & Cattle Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

John A Gloriod, of Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

Arthur T. Brewster, of Ironton, for respondents.

RAGLAND C. SMALL, C., concurs. BROWN, C., absent. All concur, except ELDER, J., who dissents.

OPINION

In Banc.

RAGLAND C.

This is a suit under the statute to quiet title to the southwest fourth of the northwest quarter and the northwest fourth of the southwest quarter of section 8, township 23, range 6 east, in Butler county, Mo, The pleadings were sufficient to authorize the judgment rendered by the trial court, and no question la raised with respect to them.

The chain of title upon which plaintiffs rested their ease is as follows: (1) Warranty deed from John Mangold and wife to Samuel W. Crawford and George Allen, dated October 21, 1882, recorded January 10, 1883, and conveying the land in controversy; (2) a sheriff's deed, dated August --, 1891, recorded August 25, 1801, based on a Judgment rendered January 22, 1801, against Samuel W. Crawford and George Allen, for taxes for the year 1883, and conveying to Clement A. Kitchen the interests of said Crawford and Allen in all of the land in controversy, except the north half of the southwest fourth of the northwest quarter of said section 8; and (3) deeds from the widow and heirs of Clement A. Kitchen, deceased, to plaintiff, George W. Bahcock, made in 1917 and recorded December 2, 1918, and purporting to convey all the lands in suit.

The following deeds, purporting to convey all of the land in controversy, constitute the chain of title under which defendant claims: (1) Patent from the United States to the state of Missouri, dated August 22, 1856, pursuant to the act of Congress approved September 28, 1850, entitled "An act to enable the state of Arkansas and other states to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits"; (2) patent from the state of Missouri to Butter county, dated February 17, 1870, recorded March 30, 1870; (3) quitclaim deed from George W. Allen and wife and Samuel W. Crawford and wife to John Mangold, dated December 5, 1887, and recorded January 31, 1906; (4) patent from Butler county to John Mangold, dated December 28, 1804, and recorded February 6, 1896; (5) warranty deed from the widow and heirs of John Mangold, deceased, to Frank J. Mangold, dated February 13, 1917, and recorded March 14, 1917; and (6) Frank J. Mangold by mesne conveyances to the defendant.

The recitals and granting clause of the patent from Butler county to John Mangold are as follows:

"Whereas, on the 1st day of November, A. D. 1882, John Mangold did purchase of and from the county of Butler in the state of Missouri, the following described real estate, situate in the county of Butler in the state of Missouri, to wit: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter and the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section eight (8), township twenty-three (23), range six (6) east, containing 80 acres more or less at and for the price of $ 1.25 per acre, being a part of the lands known and designated as swamp land and which was patented by the state of Missouri to the county of Butler on the 17th day of February, A. D. 1870, and whereas it appears to the satisfaction of the county court of Butler county, that on the 2d day of May, A. D. 1892, John Mangold made full payment for the said land in the sum of one hundred (9100) dollars and -- cents to said Butler county. Now in consideration of the premises and in conformity with the provisions of law the county of Butler both given and granted and by these presents doth give and grant unto the said John Mangold and his heirs the land above described."

The trial court found and adjudged that the defendant bad the title in fee simple to the north half of the southwest fourth of the northwest quarter of said section 8; and that plaintiffs had like title to the remainder of the lands in controversy. From that judgment defendant appeals.

1. While there is no express admission to that effect, It appears that Crawford and Allen are the common source of title. According to the recitals of its patent, Butler county sold the land to John Mangold, November 1, 1882. Mangold conveyed by a deed of general warranty to Crawford and Allen, October 21, 1882, and, while at that time be had neither the legal nor complete equitable title, and possibly none at all, the full title be acquired later, by the patent issued December 28, 1894, Inured under the covenants of his deed to his grantees therein and their assigns. Section 3940, R. S. 1879; Johnson v. Johnson, 170 Mo. 34, 70 S.W. 241, 59 L. B. A. 748; Fordyce v. Rapp, 131 Mo. 354, 33 S.W. 57. Crawford and Allen reconveyed to Mangold by quitclaim deed December 13, 1S87, but that deed was not filed for record until January 31, 1906. If defendant has the title, it came through this conveyance. On the other hand, plaintiffs' title, if any, is derived through the sheriff's deed made pursuant to the judgment for taxes rendered against Crawford and Allen in 1891. Whether this deed conveyed any title Is the only question discussed in the briefs of counsel. Appellant contends that it did not, for two reasons: First, because Crawford and Allen bad parted with whatever title they bad to the land before the suit for taxes was commenced; and, second, because the lands belonged to Butler county, and hence were not subject to taxation at the time the taxes, for which the Judgment was recovered, were assessed. These we will consider In the order named.

2. The tax suit, in which the Judgment was rendered, was commenced against Crawford and Allen in 1889, nearly two years after they had conveyed the land to John Mangold, but the deed to Mangold bad not been recorded and...