Rouse v. Caton

Decision Date29 March 1902
Citation67 S.W. 578,168 Mo. 288
PartiesROUSE v. CATON et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

4. A landowner conveyed to another, who conveyed to the owner's wife and children, but the deeds were not recorded, and the land was sold under attachment against the owner by a subsequent creditor, who purchased at the sale, the amount of his bid less costs being credited on the execution. Held, that a contention that the purchaser, having given no new consideration, was charged with notice of all infirmities, and that the deed of the owner was good as against him, was of no avail, the deeds not having been given in good faith.

Error to circuit court, Linn county; John P. Butler, Judge.

Suit by J. W. Rouse against Harry L. Caton and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Lander & Lander, for plaintiffs in error. A. W. Mullins, for defendant in error.

BRACE, P.J.

The defendants in this case are Luke T. Caton and his two sons, Leo T. Caton and Harry L. Caton. By deed dated August 26, 1895, acknowledged September 5, 1895, and recorded on the 20th of July, 1896, the said Luke T. Caton and wife conveyed to the said Leo T. Caton and Harry L. Caton the E. ½ of the S. E. ¼ and the S. E. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 16, and the N. E. ¼ of section 21, in township 58, range 18, in Linn county, containing 280 acres. On the 23d of July, 1896, the plaintiff, J. W. Rouse, instituted a suit by attachment in the circuit court of said county against the said defendant Luke T. Caton, which was duly levied on said lands, and which was thereafter duly sustained, and therein, on the 26th of April, 1897, the plaintiff obtained judgment against the said Luke T. Caton in the sum of $4,600.57 and costs. In pursuance of an execution issued on this judgment, the said real estate was duly sold, and the plaintiff became the purchaser thereof for the sum of $2,000, received a sheriff's deed therefor, and thereafter instituted this suit.

The petition is in two counts, — the first in the nature of a bill in equity to set aside said deed of Luke T. Caton, of date August 26, 1895, on the ground that it was made without consideration, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors, and the second in ejectment, to recover possession of the premises. The finding on both counts was in favor of the plaintiff, and defendants' motion for rehearing and new trial having been overruled, they bring the case here by writ of error.

The facts of this case, so far as they can be made out from the imperfect transcript of plaintiffs in error, which contains but a fragment of the evidence, eked out by that of the defendant in error, seem to be about as follows: In 1890 Luke T. Caton was the owner of the 280 acres of land in controversy, which, in connection with another 40-acre tract, the title to which was in his wife, constituted his home place, on which he resided with his family. He owned other lands and a one-half interest in a saloon in the town of Bucklin, some two or three miles distant from his home farm, and some personal property. He was then in comfortable circumstances, and entirely solvent. In the fall of that year he and his wife signed and acknowledged a deed conveying the home farm to one John C. Whittaker, and a few days thereafter the said Whittaker signed and acknowledged a deed conveying said premises to Fannie Caton, the wife of the said Luke T. Caton, and his two sons, Leo T. Caton and Harry L. Caton. These deeds were never recorded, and remained in the possession or under the control of the said Luke T. and his wife from the time they were so signed until they were produced on the trial of this cause. At the time these deeds were so signed and acknowledged his son Leo was aged about 20 years, and his son Harry was about 9 years old. It is conceded that these deeds were without valuable consideration. As counsel for defendants say in their brief, "This roundabout transaction was only to avoid a direct conveyance to the wife." Afterwards the deed in controversy, conveying the 280 acres aforesaid to the said Leo T. and Harry L. Caton, was signed by the said Luke T. Caton and wife, and acknowledged on the 5th day of September, 1895. This deed was also without any valuable consideration, and remained in the possession and under the control of the said Luke T. and his wife until it was filed for record on the 20th of July, 1896. Up to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Borchers v. Borchers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ......110;. Snodgrass v. Copple, 131 Mo.App. 346; Kaes v. Gross, 92 Mo. 647; Smith v. Bunn, 75 Mo. 559;. Klotz v. Rhodes, 240 Mo. 499; Rouse v. Caton, 168 Mo. 288; Smith v. Thompson, 169 Mo. 553. (6) Removal of the family from the homestead constitutes. a prima facie case of abandonment ......
  • Borchers v. Borchers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 7, 1944
    ...110; Snodgrass v. Copple, 131 Mo. App. 346; Kaes v. Gross, 92 Mo. 647; Smith v. Bunn, 75 Mo. 559; Klotz v. Rhodes, 240 Mo. 499; Rouse v. Caton, 168 Mo. 288; Smith v. Thompson, 169 Mo. 553. (6) Removal of the family from the homestead constitutes a prima facie case of abandonment and raises ......
  • Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Beagles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 12, 1933
    ...... 71; Scott v. Scott, 324 Mo. 1055, 26 S.W.2d 598. (d). Defendants have no homestead interest in this land. Collier v. Porter, 16 S.W.2d 49; Rouse v. Caton, 168 Mo. 288; State v. Sinclair, 250 Mo. 278; Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin, 246 Mo. 711;. State Bank of Eagle Grove v. Daugherty, 167 Mo. ......
  • Travelers Ins. Co. v. Beagles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 12, 1933
    ...Scott, 324 Mo. 1055, 26 S.W. (2d) 598. (d) Defendants have no homestead interest in this land. Collier v. Porter, 16 S.W. (2d) 49; Rouse v. Caton, 168 Mo. 288; State v. Sinclair, 250 Mo. 278; Teckenbrock v. McLaughlin, 246 Mo. 711; State Bank of Eagle Grove v. Daugherty, 167 Mo. 1; Tucker v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT