Norcum v. Sheahan
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 25 |
| Parties | NORCUM, Plaintiff in Error, v. SHEAHAN, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a deed for the wife's estate in land, executed by husband and wife during the wife's minority, is avoided by a second deed executed after the wife's majority, a title acquired by the grantee in the first deed, by adverse possession, to other interests than those conveyed by that deed, does not enure to the benefit of the wife or her grantee in the second deed. (Norcum v. Gaty, 19 Mo. Rep. affirmed.)
2. A deed for the wife's land, executed by husband and wife during her minority, so far as it operates upon her estate, may be avoided by a second deed executed by husband and wife after her majority.
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.
This was an action of ejectment begun in 1848, for a lot in block 16 of the city of St. Louis. The defendant was in possession under a deed executed by Joseph Vasquez and wife in 1816, during the wife's minority. The plaintiff claimed under a deed executed by the same parties in 1846, after the wife had become of age. The lot was part of a lot confirmed to the heirs of Nicholas Hebert dit Lecompte, of whom Mrs. Vasquez was one, and was conveyed to her by a deed from a portion of the other heirs; but it appeared that there were some of the heirs whose title she did not acquire. The facts are more fully stated in the report of the case of Norcum v. Gaty, 19 Mo. Rep. 65.
Mr. Shepley and Mr. Picot, for plaintiff in error.
In addition to the points made in the case of Norcum v. Gaty, 19 Mo. Rep. 65, Mr. Picot filed a printed argument upon the point that the conveyance by the husband of Mrs. Vasquez, in 1816, worked a discontinuance of her estate, and that she could not avoid it until the removal of her coverture. The line of argument pursued is indicated in the opinion of the court. The following authorities were cited:
W. L. Williams, for defendant in error.
This case is in all respects like that of Norcum v. Gaty, 19 Mo. Rep. The facts are the same as well as the instructions. The instruction on which the judgment in that case was reversed is equally fatal to this.
The instruction was given at the instance of the plaintiff, and assumed that the possession of Mullanphy was adverse to any other claimant under Nicholas Hebert Lecompte, and that such possession was available as a bar to Marie Louise, the wife of Joseph Vasquez, against such claimant.
We do not see the principle on which this instruction can be sustained, as to that portion of the lot not conveyed by the deed of Marie Louise and her husband; as to this interest, Mullanphy was as any other adverse claimant. Because Mrs. Vasquez had a right to enter, after the death of her husband, on a part of the lot, how could such right affect other portions, which, it is admitted, Mullanphy held by an adverse title? What prevented such possession from being adverse to her as well as to the other heirs of Nicholas Hebert Lecompte? The deed of Vasquez and wife conveyed the life estate of Vasquez in his wife's land to Mullanphy in a portion of the lot. The wife's right taking effect in possession after the determination of that estate, could not be more extensive than that in which her husband had a life estate. On what ground can Mrs. Vasquez, or those claiming under her, derive any advantage to a portion of the lot not included in the deed, held adversely by Mullanphy? If, as to that part thus held, Mullanphy's possession was adverse as to any one, why not adverse as to Mrs. Vasquez and those claiming under her?
Another question has been raised by Mr. Picot, counsel for the plaintiff in error, and pressed upon us in an ingenious argument. The point is, that the alienation by Vasquez and wife to Hanley operated as a discontinuance of the wife's estate; that an estate in fee passed by their deed, and there being nothing on which the subsequent deed could operate, it was a nullity and passed no interest; that Mrs. Vasquez could only avoid the deed of herself and husband after his death, and a deed made before...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holcomb v. Pressley
...in ejectment is one method of disaffirming a deed made during minority, yet it is not the only method. It can be done by deed. [Norcum v. Sheahan, 21 Mo. 25.] The statutes named, and the cases ruling upon them, would not excuse the married woman after 1889 from not disavowing her prior deed......
-
Boyle v. Chambers
...avoided by the wife; but that the deed of the sheriff is not sufficient to avoid the estate so passed to Chouteau.” In the case of Norcum v. Sheahan, 21 Mo. 25, the question was, whether the deed of the husband could, during the continuance of the coverture of the wife, be avoided by anothe......
-
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Lamb
...avoided by a subsequent absolute conveyance of the same land, after majority, to a third person. Youse v. Norcoms,12 Mo. 550; Norcum v. Sheahan, 21 Mo. 25; Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 John. 539; Jackson v. Burchin, 14 John. 123. The effect of the disaffirming act must depend greatly upon the n......
-
Peterson v. Laik
...disaffirmance to the jury. It was a question of law. (1 Mo. 68; 7 Mo. 607; 1 Bibb, 283; 6 Mo. 267, 279; 16 Mo. 62; 12 Mo. 549; 19 Mo. 65; 21 Mo. 25; 10 Pet. 59; 11 Johns. 539; 14 Johns. 124.) III. The second instruction was erroneous. (Adams' Ejectment, 55, 56, 88; 3 Conn. 191.) Kribben, fo......