Phillips v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 31 March 1875
• Citation: 59 Mo. 491
• Parties: JOHN S. PHILLIPS, et al., Appellants, v. GOAH W. STEWART, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

59 Mo. 491

JOHN S. PHILLIPS, et al., Appellants,

v.GOAH W. STEWART, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1875.

Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court.

Louis Houck, for appellants.

Glover & Shepley, for respondents.

I. Where land is sold at auction at 10 cents an acre, the fair value being 25 cents an acre, the sale is not invalid for inadequacy of consideration. (50 Ills., 455; Duncan vs. Saunders, 43 Mo., 297; Brown vs. Hann. & St. Jo. R. R., 48 Mo., 495; Cadwallader vs. West, 48 Mo., 483; 1 Strong Eq., 11th ed., sec. 244 note.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiffs filed their petition in the nature of a bill in equity to set aside a conveyance made by Case, as executor of Robert Stewart, deceased. It was alleged that the testator Stewart was seized at his death of a large body of land and of personal property nearly sufficient to satisfy his debts; and that by his will he directed his debts to be paid out of his real estate, after exhausting his personal property; that Case, the executor of the will, fraudulently combined with the other defendants to sell six thousand acres of land, the property of the estate, for the purpose of cheating and defrauding the heirs and creditors, and that the sale was made and the lands conveyed by the executor for the joint benefit of the executor and the defendants; that the six thousand acres were fraudulently sold to Stewart, one of the defendants, for six hundred dollars, a grossly inadequate price, and that the land was worth at the time not less than twenty thousand dollars; that Stewart, after he received the deed, took possession of the land and realized a large amount of money from the sale of wood, and that in the sale of the land it was put up in such large quantities that many bidders could not purchase.

The answer denied all the allegations in the bill. The cause was heard before the court on the proofs, and the issues were found for the defendants, and plaintiff's bill was dismissed. The evidence utterly failed to show any combination between the executor and the purchaser, or that there were any fraudulent practices at the sale. The sale of so large a quantity of land for so small a price, at first blush, appears startling, but the situation and real value of the land materially changes its aspect. It was swamp or overflowed land, and, with the exception of very inconsiderable portions, was worthless for cultivation. The evidence shows that from two to three months in the year it was nearly all submerged, and its principal value consisted in its timber. Great diversity among the witnesses existed as to its real worth. There was one piece called the “long field,” including nearly a hundred acres that was estimated by some to be worth five dollars an acre, but it was shown that its cultivation had been abandoned, and that it had been permitted to grow up in brush, and a part of it had gone in the river. One witness stated that the whole land was worth two dollars and a half an acre, and another placed it at one dollar and twenty-five cents; other witnesses stated that, take it all together, it was worth from twenty-five to fifty cents per acre, and yet others put it at only eight and ten cents per acre; and there was still other evidence showing that a large proportion of it was not worth paying taxes on. It is very evident that the land was not valuable, and it is fair to conclude that taken as a whole its marketable value did not exceed from thirty to forty cents per acre.

It is well settled that inadequacy of price, unaccompanied with fraud or unfair dealing, is not a distinct ground for relief in equity jurisprudence. There are sometimes cases of such...