Porter v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 07 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 28583.,28583. |
| Citation | 29 S.W.2d 133 |
| Parties | PORTER v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; S. W. Bates, Judge.
Action in ejectment by Wallace Porter against W. M. Robinson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. J. Owen, of Joplin, and M. R. Lively, of Webb City, for appellant.
W. M. Robinson, pro se.
Howard Gray, of Carthage, for respondent.
Action in ejectment whereby the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of land described as follows:
"An undivided one-half (½) interest in the east half (E ½) of the Southwest Quarter (S. W. ¼) of Section 20, Township 28, Range 33, in Jasper county, Missouri."
From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed.
An agreement appears in the record that one John C. Bailey and the defendant, W. M. Robinson, owned the land in dispute as tenants in common December 7, 1899. John C. Bailey and his wife thereafter executed a deed of trust conveying to a trustee Bailey's one-half interest to secure a note to W. M. Robinson. In December, 1913, that deed of trust was foreclosed, and John H. Bailey became the purchaser. John H. Bailey executed deed of trust conveying the property to Samuel McReynolds to secure a loan made to him by the said Robinson. On May 2, 1925, that deed of trust was foreclosed, and W. M. Robinson became the purchaser. The trustee's deed was filed for record May 2, 1925.
John H. Bailey died leaving a will in which he devised all his property to his wife, Elizabeth Bailey. The foreclosure last mentioned was more than nine months after his death.
At the November term, 1924, of the circuit court of Jasper county, a tax suit was brought to foreclose the state's lien for taxes against a tract described as follows:
"40 Acres, being the undivided one-half of the East one-half, of the Southwest one-fourth of Section 20, Township 28, Range 33."
Elizabeth Bailey, A. M. Robinson, Samuel McReynolds, trustee, and W. M. Robinson were made defendants in that tax suit.
All of the defendants mentioned except A. M. Robinson were served with process and judgment in the tax suit was rendered, execution issued, the property sold, and W. R. Shuck became the purchaser. In the tax bill and the tax deed the description was as last set out above.
The taxes for which the state's lien was foreclosed in the suit were for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922. For the year 1920 the assessment list shows the tax assessed as follows:
Name of Owner Acres Parts of Section Sec. Twp. Rge. Value
W. M. Robinson 40 Und. ½ E. 2 S. W. 20 28 33 1600
J. C. Bailey 40 Und. ½ E. 2 S. W. 20 28 33 1600
The assessments for the years 1921 and 1922 are in the same form, except the valuation for said years is $2,080.
W. R. Shuck and wife, by warranty deed dated May 6, 1926, conveyed the land to plaintiff, Wallace C. Porter.
I. The appellant claims that the description set out above in the tax judgment, tax bill, and tax deed is so vague and uncertain that the land cannot be located or identified, and cites a number of cases where a part of a tract of land containing a certain number of acres is conveyed and held to be void for the reason that the part conveyed could not be described. The argument runs that no one can locate the particular forty acres intended to be covered by the tax judgment, whether it was the east or west or north or south forty acres of the larger tract, or any other forty acres included and contained within the east half of the southwest quarter of the section.
The general rule, under the title "Deeds," laid down in Corpus Juris, vol. 18, p. 183, is:
"A description is insufficient or a deed is void, where it fails to specify the portion or tract out of which the land is to be taken, or does not designate some certain proportionate interest, or quantity; or does not describe any specific tract; or does not identify the particular proportionate interest intended; or does not show which fractional part intended is conveyed."
The tax deed and all anterior proceedings does describe "the particular proportionate interest intended." It is the undivided one-half of the half quarter-section. The appellant may not complain of that description of the proportionate part conveyed since he already owned an undivided one-half interest in the property. The land had long been held by Robinson and Bailey as tenants in common — Robinson owned one half interest and John C. Bailey the other half interest. Robinson acquired the Bailey half under the foreclosure of a deed of trust by its description as an undivided one-half. Robinson had paid the taxes on his half. Then the delinquent taxes accrued and could only accrue on the Bailey half interest; the proceeding was against the Bailey half interest, and it was the Bailey half interest which Robinson had acquired under the foreclosure. That undivided...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shroyer v. Missouri Livestock Commission Co.
-
Wahlig v. Krenning-Schlapp Grocer Co.
... ... 638; Granite Sand & Gravel Co. v ... Willoughby, 23 N.E. 194; Burton Auto Transfer Co. v ... Industrial Comm., 174 P. 72; J. E. Porter Co. v ... Industrial Commission, 301 Ill. 76; In re ... Harraden, 118 N.E. 142, 66 Ind.App. 298; Refuge ... Assur. Co. v. Miller, 49 Sc. L ... ...
-
Wahlig v. Grocer Co.
... ... Supp. 638; Granite Sand & Gravel Co. v. Willoughby, 23 N.E. 194; Burton Auto Transfer Co. v. Industrial Comm., 174 Pac. 72; J.E. Porter Co. v. Industrial Commission, 301 Ill. 76; In re Harraden, 118 N.E. 142, 66 Ind. App. 298; Refuge Assur. Co. v. Miller, 49 Sc. L.R. 67, 5 B.W.C.C ... ...
-
Boxley v. Easter, 46582
...Sec. 30 h, p. 656; Walker v. Garner, supra, 167 S.W. 959; Shewalter v. Pirner, 55 Mo. 218, 232; Fancher v. Prock, supra; Porter v. Robinson, Mo., 29 S.W.2d 133, 135; Rosenberger v. Wabash R. Co., 96 Mo.App. 504, 507, 70 S.W. There is no merit in defendants' argument, based on the call in te......