Sox v. Miracle

• Citation: 160 N.W. 716,35 N.D. 458
• Decision Date: 02 December 1916
• Docket Number: 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

160 N.W. 716

35 N.D. 458

HERMAN E. SOX, Respondent, v. W. W. MIRACLE, M. W. Miracle, Maggie Miracle, Standard Oil Company, a Corporation, Dodson, Fisher, Brockman Company, a Corporation, North Star Lumber Company, a Corporation, Defendants, M. W. Miracle, Respondent, Dodson, Fisher, Brockman Company, Appellant

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

December 2, 1916

Rehearing denied December 28, 1916.

Action to have an assignment of a school land contract declared a mortgage and for the foreclosure of the same. Claim of a prior attachment.

Appeal from the District Court of La Moure County, J. A. Coffey, J.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant Dodson, Fisher, Brockman Company appeals.

Reversed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Henry G. Middaugh and Rollo F. Hunt, for appellant.

Under an executory contract for the purchase and sale of state school lands, the holder of such contract may maintain an action for injuries done to the lands. Such holder has an interest in the lands. He is vested with an estate in the lands. Assignees of such holder, when the contract is properly assigned, delivered, and recorded, are invested with the same rights therein and thereunder as was the person who obtained the contract from the state. Comp. Laws, 1913 §§ 314, 315; Laws 1893, chap. 118, § 30; Brooke v. Eastman, 17 S.D. 339, 96 N.W. 699; 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 107; Bissell v. Heyward, 96 U.S 580, 24 L.Ed. 678; Jennison v. Leonard, 21 Wall 302, 22 L.Ed. 539; Martin v. Bryson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 71 S.W. 615; Allen v. Cadwell, 55 Mich. 8, 20 N.W. 692; Kercheval v. Wood, 3 Mich. 509; How. Anno. Stat. (Mich.) 5729, 7532; Robertson v. Howard, 82 Kan. 588, 109 P. 696; Travis v. Topeka Supply Co. 42 Kan. 625, 22 P. 991; Poole v. French, 71 Kan. 391, 80 P. 997.

Lands held by equitable title are subject to levy and sale as well as that held by legal title. Aldrich v. Boice, 56 Kan. 170, 42 P. 695.

Such title, under such a contract, is properly levied upon under execution or attachment, as real property. Rev. Codes 1905, §§ 7137, 9532, Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 7751, 10,368; Nearing v. Coop, 6 N.D. 345, 70 N.W. 1044; Wadge v. Kittleson, 12 N.D. 452, 97 N.W. 856; Salzer Lumber Co. v. Claflin, 16 N.D. 601, 113 N.W. 1036.

The interest of the vendee in such a contract is the money contracted to be paid by the purchaser, and he retains legal title only as security. The interest of vendee thereunder is the land contracted to be conveyed. Clapp v. Tower, 11 N.D. 556, 93 N.W. 862; Williams v. Haddock, 145 N.Y. 144, 39 N.E. 825; Keep v. Miller, 42 N.J.Eq. 100, 6 A. 495; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 471, cases cited in note 1; Woodward v. McCollum, 16 N.D. 42, 111 N.W. 623; 29 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 703, and cases cited; Nearing v. Coop, 6 N.D. 349, 70 N.W. 1044; Roby v. Bismarck Nat. Bank, 4 N.D. 156, 50 Am. St. Rep. 633, 59 N.W. 719; Moen v. Lillestal, 5 N.D. 331, 65 N.W. 694; Pom. Eq. Jur. 368, and cases cited; Warvelle, Vend. & P.2d ed. 842; Lombard v. Chicago Sinai Congregation, 64 Ill. 477; Rand v. Garner, 75 Iowa 311, 39 N.W. 515; Sheppard v. Messenger, 107 Iowa 717, 77 N.W. 515; Hook v. Northwest Thresher Co. 91 Minn. 482, 98 N.W. 463; Wilder v. Haughey, 21 Minn. 101; Reynolds v. Fleming, 43 Minn. 514, 45 N.W. 1099; Atwater v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 45 Minn. 341, 12 L.R.A. 741, 48 N.W. 187; Marston v. Williams, 45 Minn. 116, 22 Am. St. Rep. 719, 47 N.W. 644; Van Camp v. Peerenboom, 14 Wis. 66; Lippencott v. Wilson, 40 Iowa 425; Simonson v. Wenzel, 27 N.D. 738, L.R.A. , , 147 N.W. 804.

The attachment creditor is protected against unrecorded conveyances. Rev. Codes 1905, § 5038, Comp. Laws 1913, § 5594; Mott v. Holbrook, 28 N.D. 251, 148 N.W. 1061; Enderlin Invest. Co. v. Nordhagen, 18 N.D. 523, 123 N.W. 390, 21 N.D. 25, 129 N.W. 1024; 2 R. C. L. 857; National Bank v. Western P. R. Co. 157 Cal. 573, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 987, 108 P. 676, 21 Ann. Cas. 1391; Westervelt v. Hagge, 61 Neb. 647, 54 L.R.A. 333, 85 N.W. 852.

A judgment obtained in a suit where an attachment has been levied relates back to the date of such levy. Cummings v. Duncan, 22 N.D. 534, 134 N.W. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 976; Brooke v. Eastman, 17 S.D. 339, 96 N.W. 699; Simonson v. Wenzel, 27 N.D. 738, L.R.A. , , 147 N.W. 804; Balen v. Mercier, 75 Mich. 42, 42 N.W. 666; Miller v. Shelburn, 15 N.D. 182, 107 N.W. 51.

The purchaser under an executory contract for the sale of land or a bond for title, being in possession and having partly performed his part of the contract, although the legal title remains in the vendor, has an interest in the premises which he may mortgage to a third person. 27 Cyc. 1037, 1139, and cases cited; Krause v. Krause, 30 N.D. 54, 151 N.W. 991; Cummings v. Duncan, 22 N.D. 534, 134 N.W. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 976.

Engerud, Holt, & Frame, for M. W. Miracle, respondent, and Davis & Warren, for plaintiff, respondent.

The method of levy under an execution or writ of attachment depends upon the character of the property to be proceeded against, and this distinction is especially marked as between real and personal property. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 7547, 7720.

Such proceedings were not known to the common law, but are wholly statutory. Birchall v. Griggs, 4 N.D. 305, 50 Am. St. Rep. 654, 60 N.W. 842; Latham v. Blake, 77 Cal. 646, 20 P. 417, 18 P. 150.

The directions of the statute must be strictly followed. Ireland v. Adair, 12 N.D. 29, 102 Am. St. Rep. 561, 94 N.W. 766; Birchall v. Griggs, supra; Courtney v. Eighth Ward Bank, 154 N.Y. 688, 49 N.E. 54; Rudolph v. Saunders, 111 Cal. 233, 43 P. 619; Latham v. Blake, supra; Hayden v. National Bank, 130 N.Y. 146, 29 N.E. 143; McLaughlin v. Alexander, 2 S.D. 226, 49 N.W. 99.

Appellant acquired no lien by the attachment proceedings, because the words "real property" used in the statute impart a legal estate in fee simple. Comp. Laws 1913, §§ 5249, 5250, 7547, 7691, P 1; 3 Kent, Com. 401 to 403; Murphy v. Superior Ct. 138 Cal. 69, 70 P. 1070; Fretwell v. McLemore, 52 Ala. 145; Bates v. Sparrell, 10 Mass. 325; Meni v. Rathbone, 21 Ind. 454; Scogin v. Perry, 32 Tex. 21; Cummings v. Duncan, 22 N.D. 534, 134 N.W. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 976; Phoenix Min. & Mill. Co. v. Scott, 20 Wash. 48, 54 P. 777; Dickerson v. Nelson, 4 Ind. 160; Jeffries v. Sherburn, 21 Ind. 112; Harrington v. Sharp, 1 G. Greene, 131, 48 Am. Dec. 365.

Further than this, and as another reason, because the interest of the holder of the contract of sale was personal property. Cummings v. Duncan, 22 N.D. 535, 134 N.W. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 976; Miller v. Shelburn, 15 N.D. 182, 107 N.W. 51; Pom. Eq. Jur. § 367; Bogart v. Perry, 1 Johns. Ch. 52; Davis v. Williams, 130 Ala. 530, 54 L.R.A. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 55, 30 So. 488; Comp. Laws 1913, § 7903, P 3.

These state school contracts create equitable estates and interests in all respects similar to contracts for the sale of land between private parties. Jeffries v. Sherburn, 21 Ind. 112; Martin v. Bryson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 98, 71 S.W. 615; Wilder v. Haughey, 21 Minn. 101; Poole v. French, 71 Kan. 391, 80 P. 997; Allen v. Caldwell, 55 Mich. 8, 20 N.W. 692; Robertson v. Howard, 82 Kan. 588, 109 P. 697; Brooke v. Eastman, 17 S.D. 339, 96 N.W. 699; Cummings v. Duncan, 22 N.D. 534, 134 N.W. 712, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 976.

The legislature may classify property or define a given term differently in the different Codes, to give effect to a purpose which it has in mind in dealing with a given subject-matter. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Miami County, 67 Kan. 434, 73 P. 103; Lewis v. Glass, 92 Tenn. 147, 20 S.W. 571; Stull v. Graham, 60 Ark. 461, 31 S.W. 46.

Cases which hold that a vendee's equity under an executory contract of purchase may be levied upon and sold on execution as real estate are under statutes not like our statutes, and here lies the distinction. Kan. Gen. Stat. 1889, § 6687, P 8; Minn. Rev. Laws 1905, § 5514, P 9; Miller's Rev. Code (Iowa) 1888, § 45, P 8; How. Anno. Stat. (Mich.) 2d ed. § 2, P 9; Re McCabe, 29 Mont. 28, 73 P. 1106.

Only a mere right in equity coupled with possession is created in the vendee by such a contract, and does not constitute a leviable interest. Jeffries v. Sherburn, 21 Ind. 112; Bremseth v. Olson, 16 N.D. 242, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 170, 112 N.W. 1056, 14 Ann. Cas. 1155; Dieter v. Fraine, 20 N.D. 484, 128 N.W. 684; McKee v. Wilcox, 11 Mich. 359, 83 Am. Dec. 743; Spencer v. Geissman, 37 Cal. 96, 99 Am. Dec. 248.

Further than what has been said, the levy was void because the property was personal property and was not levied on as such, as by law provided. Comp. Laws 1913, § 7547; Ireland v. Adair, 12 N.D. 29, 102 Am. St. Rep. 561, 94 N.W. 766; Birchall v. Griggs, 4 N.D. 305, 50 Am. St. Rep. 654, 60 N.W. 842; Penoyer v. Kelsey, 150 N.Y. 77, 34 L.R.A. 248, 44 N.E. 788; Van Norman v. Circuit Judge, 45 Mich. 204, 7 N.W. 796; McLaughlin v. Alexander, 2 S.D. 226, 49 N.W. 99; Courtney v. Eighth Ward Bank, 154 N.Y. 688, 49 N.E. 54; Rudolph v. Saunders, 111 Cal. 233, 43 P. 619; Gow v. Marshall, 90 Cal. 565, 27 P. 422; McBride v. Fallon, 65 Cal. 301, 4 P. 17; Latham v. Blake, 77 Cal. 646, 20 P. 417, 18 P. 150; Perry v. Hayward, 12 Cush. 344; Lederer v. Rosenthal, 99 Wis. 235, 74 N.W. 971; Hayden v. National Bank, 130 N.Y. 146, 29 N.E. 143; Williams v. Baynes, 84 Ga. 116, 10 S.E. 541; Wight v. Barnstable, 123 Mass. 183; Bird v. Burgsteimer, 100 Ga. 486, 28 S.E. 219; Greentree v. Rosenstock, 61 N.Y. 583; Grover v. Fox, 36 Mich. 453; Tullis v. Brawley, 3 Minn. 277, Gil. 191; Swart v. Thomas, 26 Minn. 141, 1 N.W. 830; Re Flandrow, 84 N.Y. 1.

A judgment roll properly filed and the judgment docketed and recorded, such judgment becomes a lien upon the debtor's real estate, except his homestead.

The interest of the judgment debtor here was merely an equitable estate, an estate known to and...