Reed v. Ownby
| Decision Date | 31 March 1869 |
| Citation | 44 Mo. 204 |
| Parties | WILLIAM W. REED et al., Appellants, v. OWNBY and GUY, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sixth District Court.
James Carr, for appellants.
An unrecorded mortgage will not prevail over a subsequent judgment, although the mortgagee give notice of his mortgage before sale under the judgment. (Washington's Lessee v. Trousdale and the Banks, Mart. & Yerg. 385; Smith v. Jordan, 25 Ga. 687; Shepherd v. Burkhalter, 13 Ga. 443; Guerrant v. Anderson, 4 Rand. 208; Priest v. Rice, 4 Pick. 164; Davidson v. Cowan, 1 Dev. Eq. 474.) A fortiori, an unrecorded mortgage, of which an attaching creditor has no notice, will not prevail over a subsequent attachment.
Howell, for respondents.
This was an action of ejectment for the recovery of the possession of a piece of land lying in Monroe county. The plaintiffs claim title under a sheriff's deed. From the record it appears that on the 13th day of August, 1861, plaintiffs commenced their suit by attachment, in the Monroe County Circuit Court, against one Frank Davis, and attached the land in controversy. On the 19th day of May, 1862, they obtained a judgment, on which execution issued; and at the May term, 1863, they purchased the same. At the institution of the attachment suit, so far as the records showed, the title was in Davis.
On the 21st day of March, 1862, Guy, one of the defendants, filed for record in the recorder's office of Monroe county a mortgage, executed, acknowledged, and delivered to him by Davis, for the same land, on the 15th day of April, 1861. On the 19th day of May, 1862, he obtained judgment of foreclosure of said land; and at the May term of the Circuit Court, 1863, purchased the land at sheriff's sale, made under the judgment of foreclosure. Ownby had no interest in the land, but was a tenant of Guy's.
Upon these facts being submitted to the court, a judgment was rendered for the defendants, which was affirmed in the District Court, and the case is now brought here by appeal. The only question is whether the lien acquired by the plaintiff in the attachment suit is entitled to priority over the rights of the mortgagee, although his mortgage was duly recorded before the plaintiffs obtained their judgment or purchased on execution at the sheriff's sale. This question is firmly settled in this State by two direct adjudications, holding that an unrecorded deed is good against a judgment if recorded before an execution sale under the judgment. (Davis v. Ownby, 14 Mo. 170; Valentine v. Havener, 20 Mo. 133.) The counsel for the plaintiffs admits that these authorities are directly against him, but asks this court to review the question and determine the law otherwise. This we are not at liberty to do. The law has been settled for many years; it has become a rule of property, and titles have been vested on the strength of it. Under such circumstances the error would have to be most palpable to justify this court in overruling previous decisions. The stability of judicial decisions is of the utmost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thayer
...and acted upon, and rights have vested under it, the enforcement of the maxim of stare decisis becomes almost imperative. Reed v. Ownby, 44 Mo. 204; Sappington v. Oeschli, 49 Mo. 244; Long v. Long, 79 Mo. 644. But it is not so where vested rights are not affected. Courts of last resort have......
-
Castorina v. Herrmann
...Valentine v. Havener, 20 Mo. 133; Dixon v. Dixon, 181 S.W. 84. (a) The principle is stare decisis and a rule of property. Reed v. Ownby, 44 Mo. 204; Sappington v. Oeschli, 49 Mo. 244. (2) The filing of the transcript of the judgment in the justice court case of Castorina v. Joe Campise and ......
-
State ex rel. N. American Co. v. Koerner
...Bank v. Schade, 195 Fed. 188; Valentine v. Havener, 20 Mo. 133; Stilwell v. McDonald, 39 Mo. 282; Potter v. McDowell, 43 Mo. 93; Reed v. Ownby, 44 Mo. 204; Sappington v. Oeschli, 49 Mo. 244; Black v. Long, 60 Mo. 181. (12) The petition for prohibition should be dismissed because the relator......
-
The State v. Thayer
...been established and acted upon and rights have vested under it, the enforcement of the maxim of stare decisis becomes almost imperative. [44 Mo. 204; 49 Mo. 244; 79 644.] But it is not so where vested rights are not affected. Courts of last resort have often found it necessary to reverse t......