New Madrid Banking Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 19 November 1901
• Parties: NEW MADRID BANKING CO. v. BROWN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 S.W. 297

165 Mo. 32

NEW MADRID BANKING CO. v. BROWN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 19, 1901.

FINDINGS OF FACT — HOMESTEAD — EXEMPTION — FRAUD — SALE UNDER EXECUTION — RIGHTS AND TITLE OF PURCHASER.

1. Where there is sufficient evidence upon an issue of fact to justify a finding for either plaintiff or defendant, the trial court's finding of fact will not be disturbed on appeal.

2. Where it was found that the owner of a homestead purchased other land with money derived from the sale of the homestead, and that title to the land so purchased was taken in the name of grantee's children to avoid the payment of grantee's debts, the latter finding was wholly immaterial, since, as the land purchased

with the proceeds of the sale of the homestead was exempt, grantee's motive in taking title as he did was immaterial.

3. Where a homestead was sold at judicial sale, during the owner's life, to satisfy his debts, such sale was void, and the purchaser thereat acquired no title.

4. Where a homestead was sold at judicial sale after the death of the owner, the purchaser at such sale acquired the fee subject to the right of the owner's children to hold the land as a homestead until the youngest child attained his majority.

Appeal from circuit court, Howell county; W. N. Evans, Judge.

Suit by the New Madrid Banking Company against Edna R. Brown and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a proceeding in equity to devest title to certain lands in Howell county out of the defendants, and vest it in plaintiff, and for a decree putting the plaintiff in possession thereof, and for rents and profits. The circuit court decreed the possession to the defendants until the youngest one of them becomes of age, and adjudged the title and possession to the plaintiff thereafter. The plaintiff appealed. The controversy arose in this wise: The defendants are the children and heirs at law of R. M. Morgan, deceased. The plaintiff claims title by virtue of a sheriff's deed to the land under several judgments rendered aginst R. M. Morgan during his lifetime. It does not appear from the record whether the land was sold by the sheriff, as aforesaid, before or after Morgan's death. The defendants claim, and introduced evidence tending to prove, that the land was the homestead of their father during his life, and was not worth more than $1,500, and that upon his death it passed to them until the youngest child attained its majority, and that three of them at the time of the trial were minors, aged 11, 8, and 6 years, respectively. On the other hand, the plaintiff admits that the land was occupied by Morgan as a homestead for some time before the judgments were rendered against him, and continued to be so occupied afterwards until his death; but claims that the debts evidenced by the judgments under which the land was sold on June 29, 1896, were valid and existing debts at the time Morgan acquired the land, and hence neither he nor his heirs can claim it as exempted under the homestead laws. The defendants admit that the judgments are based upon indebtedness existing at the time their ancestor acquired this particular land, but avoid the conclusion of law asserted by the plaintiff by introducing evidence to show that this homestead was acquired with the proceeds of the sale of a former homestead that their father, in 1892, owned in Pemiscot county. The plaintiff, to parry the force of this claim of the defendants, introduced evidence tending to prove that, while Morgan did own a homestead in Pemiscot county before the debts aforesaid were contracted, and while the land in controversy was acquired with the proceeds of the sale of the land in Pemiscot county, still before such debts were contracted he (Morgan) abandoned his homestead in Pemiscot county, moved his family and his residence to New Madrid, purchased and occupied a new homestead, declared his intention never to live in Pemiscot county again, continued to live with his family in the new homestead in New Madrid until his wife died, and then left New Madrid and lived in the country, with his children, for some time, and then, in 1894, he sold the Pemiscot land, and acquired the land in controversy, and established his home in Howell county. To overcome this showing, the defendants introduced evidence tending to show that Morgan did move his family from Pemiscot county to New Madrid, did purchase a house and live there until his wife's death, but that this was done without any intention of abandoning his homestead in Pemiscot county, and with the intention all the time of returning thereto; and that he moved to New Madrid only temporarily, because his wife was sick, and could not discharge the duties of a farmer's wife, and because New Madrid afforded school facilities for his children eight or nine months in the year, while in Pemiscot county the schools were only open about five months; and they further showed that while living in New Madrid he kept some of his personal property on the place in Pemiscot county, worked the farm, visited it nearly every week, and stayed there with his family at least a part of the time during the vacation of the schools. The evidence further disclosed the fact to be that Morgan was insolvent (outside of this land), and that he caused the deed to the land in controversy to be made to his children, the defendants; and the plaintiff claims that this was done to cheat, hinder, and delay his creditors, and hence asks to have the title devested out of them and vested in it. It further appears from the evidence that this land is worth $1,400 or $1,500, and that the judgment and costs under which it was sold aggregated $448.84, and that the plaintiff, through its agent and attorney, became the purchaser thereof at the sheriff's sale for the sum of $25.

James Orchard, for appellant. A. H. Livingston and Green & Garnett, for respondents.

MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).

It is...