Pockman v. Meatt

• Decision Date: 29 February 1872
• Citation: 49 Mo. 345
• Parties: MARY T. POCKMAN et al., Defendants in Error, v. ELI MEATT et al., Plaintiffs in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

49 Mo. 345

MARY T. POCKMAN et al., Defendants in Error,

v.ELI MEATT et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1872.

Error to Linn Circuit Court

The proceedings in these cases grow out of a suit for partition of the lands belonging to the estate of John B. Pockman, deceased, in Linn county. The suit was commenced on the 5th day of August, 1866, by filing a petition for partition in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court of said county. On the 6th day of August, 1867, a final judgment and decree of partition was made. In this final decree, as entered by the clerk, no finding of the interests of the parties in the lands was made. At the April term, 1868, of said Circuit Court, the sheriff made his report of the sale of said lands; and at the next succeeding term of the court, in December, 1869, the defendant Eli Meatt came into court and moved to set aside the sale on the ground of a fraudulent combination among the purchasers and bidders at said sale, and because the judgment of partition was void.

On the hearing of the motion to set aside said sale, among others the following facts were developed: That the purchasers had paid the purchase-money in full for the respective lands bought by them, and had received deeds therefor, and had entered on the lands and made lasting and valuable improvements thereon; that the parties to the original suit had received the greater portion of the money arising from said sale; and that said Meatt, before the time of the filing of said motion to set aside said sale, had sold all his interest in this matter to one James C. Slater.

Two writs of error were then sued out in these matters, under one of which the clerk has certified up all the record in the case up to the time of the motion to set aside the sale; and under the other the clerk has certified up the whole record, including the proceedings had under the motion to set aside the sale. On the 5th day of June, 1871, and after the writs of error in these cases were sued out, the purchasers of the land at said sale filed their motion to correct the record, and to have the real judgment that was rendered by the court entered nunc pro tunc, and at the December term, 1871, the said motion was sustained.G. D. Burgess, for plaintiffs in error.

The plaintiff in error is not estopped from setting the sale aside because of having received a part of the purchase-money, nor because some of the purchasers have made improvements upon the property. They were bound to know that they purchased under a valid judgment, and that the sheriff had authority to sell. (2 Sto. Eq. 1537, § 143; White v. Langdon, 30 Verm. 599; Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 152; Odlin v. Gore, 41 N. H. 465; Dixfield v. Newton, 41 Me. 221; Taylor v. Eli, 25 Conn. 250; Hill v. Eply, 31 Penn. St. 331; Taylor v. Zepp, 14 Mo. 482.)

The Circuit Court had no power or authority to correct the judgment in this cause after the term at which the judgment was made final, and more especially while the cause was pending in this court. The clerk of the Circuit Court had already entered up just such a judgment as the court had required him to enter up, and the Circuit Court had lost jurisdiction of the cause. (Smith v. Best, 42 Mo. 185; Stewart et al. v. Stringer et al., 41 Mo. 400.)

The case of DeKalb County v. Hixon, 44 Mo. 341, is not in point. In that case the clerk had entirely failed and neglected to enter up the judgment ordered by the court, while in this case the clerk did enter up the judgment, but it is erroneous. Besides, there was no notice given to any of the original parties to the suit that such motion would be made as is required by the fifth rule of the Linn Circuit Court. (Brennan's Estate, 68 Penn.; Am. Law Reg. 1871, p. 535.)

The purchasers of the property at the sale in partition had no right to come into court and ask that the judgment be corrected or entered up nunc pro tunc. They purchased with full knowledge of all defects and irregularities in the record and proceedings in the cause in the court below.

A. W. Mullins and G. W. Easley, for defendants in error.

I. If the first entry of the judgment was void, the entry of the judgment nunc pro tunc shows what the real judgment was, and cures all defects in the first entry. Under the facts disclosed in the case, the court below had full power to order the proper entry of the judgment to be made, and it was the duty of the court to do so even after the cases were removed to this court. (Gibson v. Chouteau's Heirs, 45 Mo. 171; DeKalb County v. Hixon, 44 Mo. 341; Chichester v. Cande, 2 Cow. 42, note a.)

II. Meatt having received a part of his share of the proceeds arising from the sale, cannot question the legality of the sale or judgment. (Stroble v. Smith, 8 Watts, Penn., 280; Penn v. Heisey, 19 Ill. 295; Hamilton v. Hamilton, 4 Penn. St. 193; Wilkins v. Anderson, 11 Penn. St. 399; 2 Sandf. Ch. 341; 21 U. S. Dig. 403, citing 24 Texas, 426.) It would be inequitable to allow the parties to treat this judgment and sale as legal for the purpose of receiving the proceeds arising therefrom, and, after having so received the proceeds, to treat the judgment and sale as invalid. If the judgment is void, as they claim, they lose nothing by it, because they are not divested of any title.

BLISS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

As the order in partition stood when the original writ of error issued, it was erroneous, and it is not clear that the nunc pro tunc order was properly made. Courts have a right, even after appeal, to correct obvious errors in the records, not by entering...