Patillo v. Martin

• Decision Date: 05 July 1904
• Citation: 83 S.W. 1010,107 Mo.App. 653
• Parties: PATILLO, Respondent, v. MARTIN et al., Appellants
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

83 S.W. 1010

107 Mo.App. 653

PATILLO, Respondent, v. MARTIN et al., Appellants

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

July 5, 1904

Appeal from Ozark Circuit Court.--Hon. Asberry Burkhead, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Boone & Harrison for appellants.

(1) The court erred in striking out the appellants' answer. The appellants undoubtedly had the right to ask the court leave to relinquish the land to the occupying claimant, and to recover the value thereof, aside from the improvements, and the appellants having filed their answer asking to relinquish their right to the occupying claimant, it was the duty of the court to ascertain the value of the land, and if the value of the improvements exceeded that of the land, it should have ordered the occupying claimant to take the land and pay the ascertained value aside from the improvements, and in case of default in the payment that the appellants take the land discharged from all claims of such occupying claimant. R. S 1899, secs. 3075 and 3076; Cox v. McDivit, 125 Mo 358, 28 S.W. 597; Stump v. Hornback, 94 Mo. 26, 6 S.W. 356; Marlow v. Liter, 87 Mo.App. 584. (2) Appellants, by their answer, admit that the occuping claimant had placed improvements on the land to the value of $ 1,125 and alleged that the land was worth four hundred dollars aside from the improvements, and the motion to strike out appellants' answer, being the same as demurrer, admits every material allegation stated in said answer, and therefore, we contend that the appellants are entitled to judgment on the pleadings for the sum of $ 400, the amount ascertained by the pleadings. Newton v. Newton, 162 Mo. 173, 61 S.W. 881; Goodson v. Goodson, 140 Mo. 206, 41 S.W. 737; Shields v. Johnson County, 144 Mo. 76, 47 S.W. 107.

A. H. Livingston for respondent.

(1) The court on motion struck out that portion of appellant's answer that offered to relinquish to respondent the land on payment of its value. This presents but one well-defined legal proposition, and appellants have misconceived the law of the case. The defense pleaded and stricken out is good in one class of cases, but not in this. The statutory remedy and right to compensation for improvements made in good faith by a defeated defendant in ejectment applies only where he holds under a stranger to the plaintiff's title. Henderson v. Langley, 76 Mo. 226; Railway v. Shortridge, 86 Mo. 662. (2) The case at bar comes not under the statute, but under a well-recognized rule of equity. Respondent in the ejectment suit did not claim title under a stranger to appellants but held under them through an administrator's sale on the estate of their ancestor. Such sale being held void in the ejectment suit in favor of the heirs, respondent has an equity for the return of the purchase-money with interest and reimbursement for the benefit received by the heirs and the improvement which enhance the value of land. This equitable right is administered upon the theory that the title has not passed from the purchaser by the sale; but that he has a charge on the land for his outlays and improvements made in good faith. This has been the law in such cases every since the case of Valle v. Fleming, 29 Mo. 152. This right to purchase-money, taxes and improvements is applied to any and all cases where the defendant in ejectment holds under the plaintiff by any kind of sale, contract or proceeding, and his legal title is held void at the instance of those under whom he claims. Henry v. McCurley, 78 Mo. 416. (3) This equity extends to taxes paid as well as purchase-money and improvements made in good faith and the heirs of the intestate will not be permitted to recover the land without reimbursing the purchaser for his outlays. Schafer v. Causly, 76 Mo. 365; Shroyer v. Nichols, 67 Mo. 589; Given v. Manly, 58 Mo. 559; Huff v. Price, 50 Mo. 258; Evans v. Snyder, 64 Mo. 516.

BLAND, P. J. Reyburn, J., concurs. Goode, J., dissents.

OPINION

BLAND, P. J.

Omitting caption, the petition is as follows:

"Plaintiff for his cause of action states that defendants herein instituted suit in ejectment against said plaintiff in the circuit court of this county for the possession of the south half of the northwest quarter and southwest quarter of the northeast quarter and northwest quarter of the southeast quarter, section 32, township 23, range 12, on July 7, 1902; that at the August term, 1902, of this court said cause was tried and judgment rendered against this plaintiff and in favor of the defendants for the possession of such premises.

"Plaintiff states that G. W. Martin died seized of such premises and that the defendants herein sued in said ejectment suit as the heirs of said G. W. Martin; that after the death of said G. W. Martin, the administrator of his estate on proper order made, sold such premises for the payment of the debts of the said G. W. Martin; that on the trial of said cause of these defendants against this plaintiff at the last August term of this court, the court trying said cause found that the sale made of such premises by said administrator was void, and that no title passed thereby.

"Plaintiff avers that at such sale Paul Patrick became the purchaser of such premises and in good faith paid the purchase price thereof, to-wit, the sum of seventy-five dollars; that such sale occurred on the second day of February, 1894; that immediately after such sale the said Paul Patrick entered into the possession of such premises and commenced in good faith to improve such premises and continued in possession thereof and improving the same until the thirty-first day of January, 1901, when he conveyed the same to this plaintiff; that this plaintiff then entered into such possession and has continuously held same up to this time; that plaintiff and his grantors have made valuable and lasting improvements of such premises; that there has been cleared, fenced and put in good state of cultivation, thirty-eight acres of such land; that he has erected on such premises a dwelling house; that he has planted thereon 250 fruit trees which are now bearing trees; all of which said improvements are of the value of one thousand dollars.

"That he has paid the taxes on such premises from the year 1894, amounting to the sum of fifty dollars.

"That said seventy-five dollars, the purchase money paid for such premises aforesaid, was paid in good faith and went to extinguish the debts against such estate.

"That all of such improvements have been made and the taxes paid in good faith by plaintiff and his grantor, believing that he had a good title thereto.

"Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for the said $ 75 paid as such purchase-money, as aforesaid, with interest thereon; $ 1,000 for improvements made on such premises, and $ 50 for taxes paid on such premises, with interest on each payment from the time made, and that the judgment be declared a lien on such premises until paid and that defendants be enjoined from taking possession of the premises until this action can be heard and determined."

The answer is as follows:

"Defendants for their answer admit that the defendants herein instituted suit...