Napton v. Leaton

• Citation: 71 Mo. 358
• Parties: NAPTON v. LEATON et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

71 Mo. 358

NAPTON

v.LEATON et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1879.

Appeal from Saline Circuit Court.--HON. WM. T. WOOD, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Chas. A. Winslow for appellants.

Samuel Boyd for respondent.

NORTON, J.

This is a proceeding in ejectment to recover the possession of the following lands in Saline county, towit: The northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 17, township 49, range 20, and the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 17, township 49, range 20. The suit was instituted against defendant, Leaton, and Eva W. Miller, being the landlord of said Leaton, and the real party in interest, was subsequently, on her motion, made a party defendant. The petition is in the usual form, and the answer of defendant Leaton is a specific denial of the allegations therein.

The separate answer of defendant Eva W. Miller, after denying specifically the allegations of the petition, avers that the tract of land in controversy was formerly owned by Thomas L. Williams, late of Knox county, Tennessee; that said Williams died in 1856, having previously made a will, dated November 20th, 1854, which was admitted to probate in Knox county, Tennessee, January, 1857; that the thirteenth clause thereof contains this devise: “The land I own in the State of Missouri, which adjoins the land conveyed to my daughter, R. L. Shelby, I give and devise to Mary P. Shelby, my granddaughter, she accounting for the fair cash value of said land at the time of my death;” that, after the execution of said will, the testator made a deed to said Mary P. Shelby, now intermarried with William B. Napton, Jr., conveying to her certain lands adjoining lands heretofore conveyed to her mother, which was dated in October, 1856, and in which the tract in suit is not mentioned; that said testator, some time prior to his death, made a conveyance of the land in suit to Margaret M. Miller, his daughter, together with other lands, which deed was lost before being recorded; that, after the will was probated, John Williams, the administrator de bonis non, filed a bill in chancery, before the chancellor of the eastern division of Tennessee, sitting at Knoxville, and having jurisdiction, the purpose of said bill being to obtain a construction of said will, and settle the advancements between the legatees, and adjust the kind and character of the advancements; that all the devisees, including Mary P. Napton, then Shelby, were made parties to said bill; that said Mary P. Napton, then Shelby, was a minor, and was represented by David H. Deadrick, as guardian ad litem, and in part by William B. Napton, her regular guardian in Missouri; that it was alleged in said bill that the testator, a short time before his death, while on a visit to his daughter, made a deed to Margaret M. Miller, conveying to her the land mentioned in the foregoing devise, and it was asked that she be charged with said land at its value at the time of its conveyance; that Mary P. Shelby, by her answer, insisted that the tracts of land which were devised to her by said will having been conveyed to Margaret M. Miller, in the life-time of the testator, therefore, that the respondent, Mary P. Shelby, was entitled to an amount in money equal to the value of said lands at the time of the testator's death; that, on the hearing before the chancellor and master, Margaret M. Miller was charged with the tract of land in suit at $8 per acre, and the plaintiff was charged with no land, but was allowed her portion in money; that plaintiff, since her majority, and her husband, since the marriage, with full notice and knowledge, received and receipted for her portion on the basis of having the land charged to Margaret M. Miller; that Margaret M. paid the taxes on said land until she conveyed the same to Lewis W. Miller, her son, and the husband of this defendant; that Lewis W. Miller gave a deed of trust on the land to one Sandidge, for the benefit of one Patterson; that Sandidge sold the land, and defendant became the purchaser, and is now the legal owner; that, since the year 1859, M. M. Miller, Lewis W. Miller and this defendant have paid the taxes on the land, aggregating $110.84; and that they have made valuable and lasting improvements, aggregating $800, with the knowledge and acquiescence of plaintiffs. These facts are insisted on as an estoppel, in addition to the alleged conveyance of the legal title.

The reply to this answer admits that the land belonged to Thomas L. Williams, who died in 1856, leaving a will, which was probated, the 13th clause being as copied, as alleged in the answer. It is alleged that the land in suit is part of the land described in the bequest aforesaid, and that plaintiff Mary P. Napton, then Shelby, is the granddaughter referred to. It is denied that testator conveyed this land to Margaret M. Miller at any time, or made any deed therefor. It is alleged that Margaret M. Miller falsely represented to the devisees, and to the administrator de bonis non, (whether by mistake or not they do not know,) that a deed had been made and delivered to her for said land; that plaintiffs have since been informed that the said administrator, acting upon the supposition that said representation was true, filed the bill in chancery as stated, and alleged therein that said land had been so conveyed, and asked that Margaret M. Miller be charged with the value thereof; that plaintiffs do not know whether she was so charged, but say that no evidence was produced in said suit to prove such conveyance; that plaintiffs may have been made parties, but they deny any legal or actual notice, or that any one had any authority to appear for them; and that said Mary P. Napton was a minor thirteen years of age at the time, and was and ever since has been a resident of the State of Missouri. It is denied that she was represented by William B. Napton, Sr., or that Deadrick filed any such answer as alleged, and if he did, it was without authority. It is alleged that no final decree has been made in said chancery suit, and that all the issues involved here are yet pending therein. It is denied that plaintiffs had any knowledge of the orders and decrees of said court, or have acquiesced in the same, or received and receipted for the portion of Mary P. Napton as stated, but that a larger amount is still due her than the value of said lands. It is alleged that said chancery proceeding, so far as it affects this land, is false and fraudulent; that said estate is unsettled, leaving a large amount yet due Mary P. Napton, out of which she is willing to account for the value of said land under the will; and that Lewis W. Miller may have mortgaged the land to Sandidge, but if plaintiff purchased as stated, it was with notice of the fact that the land belonged to Mary P. Napton. The payment of taxes is denied; the making of some improvements is admitted but the alleged value, and that Mary P. Napton had any knowledge thereof are denied.

Plaintiffs obtained judgment in the circuit court, from which defendants prosecute an appeal to this court.

Both plaintiffs and defendant Eva W. Miller claim the land in controversy, through Thomas L. Williams as the common source of title. Plaintiffs derive their title by virtue of a will executed by said Williams on the 20th day of November, 1854, and admitted to probate in Knox county, Tennessee, in January, 1857, which contains the following clause, viz.: “The land I own in the State of Missouri, which adjoins the land conveyed to my daughter, R. S. Shelby, I give and devise to Mary P. Shelby, my granddaughter, she accounting for the fair cash value of said land at the time of my death.” The evidence abundantly shows that the said devise to Mary P. Shelby, now the plaintiff Napton, embraces the land in controversy. Defendant insists that, notwithstanding the provision of said will, the title never passed to Plaintiff Mary P. Napton, formerly Shelby; first, because the testator, subsequently to the date of the will, and previous to his death in 1856, executed and delivered to his daughter, Margaret M. Miller, a certain deed conveying to her the identical lands therein devised to Mary P. Shelby, and that the title to the lands so conveyed, by various mesne conveyances, has become vested in defendant Eva W. Miller; second, because the plaintiffs are estopped from disputing the validity of defendant's title to the land in controversy by reason of the proceeding instituted by the administrator de bonis non of the estate of said Williams, in the chancery court sitting at Knoxville, in the State of Tennessee.

The questions, therefore presented for our consideration are two: First, Did Thomas L. Williams, after the date of his will and before his death, execute and deliver to Mrs. Margaret M. Miller a deed conveying the land in dispute? Second, If he did not, are plaintiffs estopped by the said chancery proceeding from asserting title under the will? The trial court determined both these questions in the negative, and we are asked...