Murphy v. De France

• Citation: 13 S.W. 756,101 Mo. 151
• Parties: MURPHY v. DE FRANCE et al.
• Decision Date: 19 May 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

13 S.W. 756

101 Mo. 151

MURPHY v. DE FRANCE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May 19, 1890.

JUDGMENT — EQUITABLE RELIEF — RES ADJUDICATA.

1. On an administrator's sale of land the widow of decedent became the purchaser; but, his debts not having been paid, the estate was subsequently ordered into the hands of the public administrator. On the representations of a creditor that he would make the land pay $1,000 of decedent's debts, the probate court ordered a resale, and the creditor bid it in for only $100. He subsequently instituted proceedings to have the widow's dower assigned, wherein he was adjudged the owner of the land, subject to her dower right. Held that, these proceedings having been pending for four years, and having been defended by the widow, she could not afterwards sue to have the judgment therein set aside on the ground of collusion and fraud between the public administrator and the creditor at the resale of the land, as that was a matter of defense to be interposed in the dower proceedings.

2. The widow's answer having set up the collusion and fraud between the public administrator and the creditor, and the validity of the two administrators' deeds having been passed on in the dower proceedings, the judgment in the creditor's favor is conclusive on these questions, as between the parties and their privies, though these proceedings may not have been the proper method of testing the validity of the deeds.

Appeal from circuit court, Adair county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

Blair & Marchand, for appellants. O. D. Jones, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

Nancy Murphy, the plaintiff, is the widow of Benjamin Murphy, who died in 1865 the owner of the 16 acres of land now in suit. Letters of administration were issued to the plaintiff upon the estate of her deceased husband, and she procured an order to sell real estate to pay debts, and then resigned. Ringo was appointed administrator de bonis non, and by virtue of the order of sale sold the 16 acres of land; and the plaintiff became the purchaser at the price of $400, and she received a deed dated 4th February, 1868. Ringo resigned in 1869, and thereupon the probate court ordered the estate into the hands of Chandler, the public administrator. Chandler made two applications to the probate court for an order to sell the same real estate to pay debts of the estate, both of which were refused; but an order was made upon a third petition, filed in 1874. The 16 acres, and also an 80-acre tract, were sold under this order, and the defendant De France became the purchaser at the price of $100, and received a deed dated 1st February, 1875. In 1876 the defendant De France commenced a suit in the circuit court against the plaintiff in the present suit to have dower assigned to her in the 16 acres and the 80 acres. That suit was tried in 1880, the trial resulting in the appointment of commissioners, who set off to her 5½ acres of the 16 acres as her dower in the 96 acres. The report of the commissioners was approved, and a writ of restitution awarded De France, by which he was put into possession of the property not set off to the widow. De France then conveyed 44-100 of the land to defendant Dodson. The plaintiff, claiming to own the 16 acres both as a homestead and by virtue of the administrator's sale to her, commenced this suit in equity in 1885, praying that the public administrator's deed to De France, the judgment in the case of De France against her, and the deed to defendant Dodson, be set aside and for naught held. The court found the issues for plaintiff, and entered a decree according to the prayer of the petition, to reverse which defendant sues out this appeal.

The theory of the plaintiff's petition is that De France and Dodson procured the order of sale, the sale, and the approval thereof, by a fraudulent combination with Guy Chandler, the public administrator, and that all of these proceedings to and including the judgment in the dower case were parts of one scheme to defraud the plaintiff out of her property. The petition then makes a general charge that the judgment in the suit of De France against Nancy Murphy for assignment of dower is void because collusively and fraudulently obtained. The answer sets up that judgment as a bar to this suit, and states that Mrs. Murphy filed answer in that case setting up as a defense thereto all of the matters stated in her petition in this case, and claiming the 16 acres both as a homestead and by virtue of the administrator's sale to her. The reply concedes that Mrs. Murphy defended that suit, but says none of the issues to be tried in this case were tried in that one; that her attorney told her the case would not be tried at the April adjourned term, 1880; that it was tried at that time; that no witnesses were called; and that her attorney betrayed his trust, and colluded with De France.

From the evidence adduced on the trial, it appears the debts of the Murphy estate had not been paid at the time it was ordered into the hands of Chandler, the public administrator, which was in 1869. The defendant Dodson owned one of these debts, and De France, as an attorney, represented the others, and afterwards became the owner of them. These debts amounted to $2,000 or over, and the evidence is to the effect that the estate was insolvent. De France and Dodson were of the opinion that the prior administrator's sale of the 16 acres to Mrs. Murphy was void, for reasons not necessary to be stated. Acting upon the suggestions made in Bank v. White, 23 Mo. 342, they asked, and eventually procured, the resale on the third...