Smith v. Mary A. Washington

• Decision Date: 07 March 1882
• Parties: EDWARD C. SMITH, Appellant, v. MARY A. WASHINGTON, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

11 Mo.App. 519

EDWARD C. SMITH, Appellant,

v.MARY A. WASHINGTON, Respondent.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Mar. 7, 1882.

1. Courts of equity will not enforce state claims, and will refuse to aid a party who is guilty of gross laches and unreasonable delay in asserting his rights.

2. One tenant in common of a defective title, whose co-tenant's interest is derived from him by quit-claim deed, is under no such obligation to his co-tenant as will constitute him a trustee for the latter of a superior outstanding title purchased by him.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, HORNER, J.

Affirmed.

H. H. DENISON & N. HOLMES, for the appellant: The defendant and plaintiff were in privity of title and estate--were tenants in common.--1 Washb. on Real Prop. 564 [*416]; Adams v. Frothingham, 3 Mass. 362. A privity of claim and right in the property establishes a fiduciary relation, and equity will grant relief against any fraud which is a breach of equitable duty belonging to that relation.-- Flagg v. Mann, 2 Sumn. 544, 547; Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sr. 156. It is a general doctrine that a party acquiring a title by fraud will be held a trustee for the party injured, under the head of fraud.-- Rutherford v. Williams, 42 Mo. 31, 32; Brown v. Lynch, 1 Paige Ch. 158; Boyd v. McLean, 1 Johns. Ch. 582. The principle applies with peculiar force to persons standing in the relation and privity of tenants in common.-- Van Horne v. Fonda, 5 Johns. Ch. 407; Picot v. Page, 26 Mo. 420, 421; Sneed v. Atherton, 6 Dana, 278-281; Britton v. Handy, 20 Ark. 401-403; Lee v. Fox, 6 Dana, 176; Weaver v. Wible, 25 Pa. St. 270; Venable v. Beauchamp, 3 Dana, 324; Jones v. Stanton, 11 Mo. 437; Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 618; Tisdale v. Tisdale, 2 Sneed, 598. It is no less applicable to therelation of vendor and vendee.-- Rapp v. Lowrey, 30 La. An. 1275; Galloway v. Finlay, 12 Pet. 295.

GLOVER & SHEPLEY, with whom are HENDERSON & SHIELDS and J. S. DOBYNS, for the respondent: A quitclaim deed conveys only the present right of the grantor, and the grantee can get by enurement no title that may have come to the grantor after the making of said deed, and the deed is ineffectual to pass any after-acquired title or right.-- Bogy v. Shoab, 13 Mo. 380; Gibson v. Chouteau, 39 Mo. 536-566; Bateson v. Rogers, 60 Mo. 138; Kimmil v. Benna, 70 Mo. 52-68.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The petition in this case contains the following allegations:--

On June 14, 1873, defendant agreed with John F. Darby that he should act as her attorney in asserting her rights to certain lands in Missouri and Arkansas which she claimed to own by inheritance from her father, Samuel Hammond; and, in consideration of professional services, rendered and to be rendered by Darby in the matter, agreed to convey to him one-half of whatever real estate should be recovered, in full compensation for his services. Darby entered upon the fulfilment of the agreement on his part, and performed services thereunder. Afterwards, on June 20, 1873, defendant, under said agreement, in consideration of $100, quit-claimed to Darby one undivided half of all her in terest in a tract in St. Louis, known as United States Survey 2500, located under New Madrid certificate, No. 161. Darby, on October 25, 1880, quit-claimed to plaintiff all his interest in the property described above. The quit-claim deeds for this property from Mrs. Washington to Darby, and from Darby to plaintiff, were recorded on October 25 and 27, 1880.

Defendant, on June 20, 1873, owned, and was entitled to the possession of, an undivided interest in said tract, as tenant in common with the heirs of Samuel Hammond, deceased, or their legal representatives. On and before March 31, 1877, certain persons claiming to be the heirs of Peter Lindell, deceased, or their legal representatives, and being then in actual possession of said tract, had made partition of the same among themselves, assigning to each in severalty certain portions of said tract according to a plat of a subdivision of the tract called Peter Lindell's Second Addition to St. Louis. At that date and afterwards, defendant, without the knowledge of Darby, and in fraud of his rights, and in fraud of plaintiffs' rights, together with the other heirs of, or legal representatives of, said Hammond, claiming the same as tenants in common with her in undivided shares, entered into an agreement with persons claiming to be the heirs of Peter Lindell, or their legal representatives, for a compromise of their respective claims to said tract, and for a partition of certain designated portions thereof according to the said plat of Lindell's Second Addition; and, fraudulently concealing from them the fact that she had conveyed one undivided half of her interest in said tract to Darby, induced them to enter into this compromise and partition of said tract with her and the other heirs of Hammond, co-tenants thereof with her, without notice to them of her agreement with, and deed to, Darby.

In virtue of this compromise and partition, John Baker and wife conveyed to defendant, on March 31, 1877, an undivided fifteenth of lot 66 of Lindell's Second Addition, which is fully described. Robert J. Coleman and wife, in virtue of the same compromise and partition, conveyed to defendant one undivided fifteenth of lot 67 of said addition. Lyman W. Patchin and wife were induced, as aforesaid, to convey to defendant one undivided fifteenth of lot 65 of said addition. Charles H. Peck and wife were in the same way induced to convey to plaintiff one undivided fifteenth of lots 6 and 7 of subdivision of lot 47 of said addition.

This interest of one undivided fifteenth, was conveyed to defendant as her undivided share as one of the heirs of Hàmmond, holding the same as a tenant in common with the other Hammond heirs. No partition has been made by them, and the actual possession of said several parcels was, at the same time, delivered over to the Hammond heirs, including defendant, to hold as tenants in common.

Defendant, in pursuance of said compromise and partition, together with the other Hammond heirs and representatives, excepting Darby, at the dates of the conveyances to defendant, and before the deeds to and from Darby were recorded, quit-claimed all their interest in other parcels of land, portions of Lindell's Second Addition, to the Lindell heirs, according to their claims or possessions of the same under their partition. Defendant, in co-operation with her co-tenants, conveyed the whole interest of one undivided fifteenth claimed by her as one of the Hammond heirs in said parcels, to the Lindell heirs, pretending to be the owner of the same, and concealing the fact of her previous conveyance to Darby, though she was then the owner only of a half of the same as tenant in common with Darby. By virtue of all this defendant obtained from these other persons the actual possession of said undivided fifteenth of the lots conveyed by them to her, and holds the same as one of the heirs of Hammond holding the same as tenants in common of undivided shares, to the exclusion of plaintiff. By reason of all which, defendant pretends that she has acquired a paramount title adverse to that of Darby and plaintiff by force of the statute of limitations operating upon an actual adverse possession in her and her grantors for more than ten years before the commencement of this suit.

Plaintiff claims that Darby was at that time a tenant in common with defendant of the one undivided fifteenth of said land; that such title and possession were acquired by her in fraud of Darby's rights, and are void in law, and of no avail to her as against Darby her co-tenant, and plaintiff holding under him, and that the same were, in law and equity, acquired for the common benefit of defendant and plaintiff; and were acquired by her by means of fraud practised by her upon Darby and said other parties, and are still held by her adversely to plaintiff, in actual ouster of his possession and in fraud of his rights as tenant in common with her.

The prayer is, that defendant be declared a trustee for plaintiff's use, in respect of one-half of the undivided fifteenth of tracts conveyed to her, and be declared to hold the same as tenant in common with plaintiff; that one-half of the undivided fifteenth in these lands so acquired by her, be...