Spence v. Renfro

• Decision Date: 01 February 1904
• Citation: 179 Mo. 417,78 S.W. 597
• Parties: SPENCE v. RENFRO.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

78 S.W. 597

179 Mo. 417

SPENCE v. RENFRO.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 1, 1904.

TAXATION—SALE OF LAND—HOLDER OF RECORD TITLE—ESTOPPEL.

1. Where plaintiff, who held the record title to land sold for taxation, though not a party to the proceedings, attended the sale, and, without giving notice of his title, bid for the property, and thereby induced defendant to believe that he did not own the land, and to bid higher and purchase the property, and after the sale stated that he owned the property and that he bid in order "to beat the taxes," he was thereby estopped from asserting his title as against defendant.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; J. L. Fort, Judge.

Action by William A. Spence against William E. Renfro. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

L. D. Groves and Phillips & Phillips, for appellant. Thos. J. Murray, for respondent.

BURGESS, J.

In 1898 John N. Lacks, collector of the revenue of Butler county, instituted suit in the circuit court of that county to enforce the state's lien for taxes, on the lands described in the petition which was filed in this cause, for the years 1894 and 1895. The Poplar Bluff Lumber & Manufacturing Company and W. I. Hooper were made parties defendant, and at the May term of said court, 1899, judgment was obtained, upon which a special execution was duly issued and the land levied upon and advertised for sale, and on the 5th day of October, 1899, all of said lands were sold to the defendant for the sum of $57, he being the highest bidder at said sale. At the time of the institution of the suit for delinquent taxes the defendants thereto had no title to said land, but plaintiff was the owner of the record title, having acquired the title by deed from Ben F. Turner and wife on the 8th day of July, 1895, which deed was duly recorded in the recorder's office of said county on the 8th day of May, 1897, but he was not made a party to said suit. He was present, however, at the sale of the land, and was next to the highest bidder therefor, but gave no intimation that he owned it or claimed title to it. A short time after said sheriff's sale plaintiff began this suit for the purpose of having it adjudged and decreed that the sheriff's deed to defendant passed no title, and for an injunction prohibiting him from placing it upon record, and thereby creating a cloud upon plaintiff's title. Defendant answered, in which it is alleged that the plaintiff well knew that the taxes herein referred to were due and unpaid, and that judgment had been rendered in the circuit court for said taxes, and that the sheriff had advertised said lands for sale under the special execution aforesaid, and the plaintiff well knew that the taxes were just, due, and unpaid, and negligently permitted said land to be offered for sale, without offering to pay said taxes. For a further defense the defendant says that at said sale the plaintiff was present and a bidder; that he made a number of bids on said land, being the next highest bidder to this defendant; that plaintiff made no claim of title to said land until after it had been sold by the sheriff to this defendant, when the plaintiff, for the first time, informed this defendant that the defendants in the tax suit had no title to the land; that he, the plaintiff, owned the land, and had let it go to sale, expecting to buy it in for less than the taxes. Defendant says that by the plaintiff's conduct in bidding on said land this defendant was led to believe that the plaintiff regarded the defendants in the tax suits as the owners of the land; defendant bought said land believing that the defendants in the tax suit owned the land, and without any knowledge until after said sale that the plaintiff made any claim to said land. Defendant says that by reason of the conduct of the plaintiff at said sale as a bidder, and his failure to disclose his claim of title, this defendant was misled and deceived into buying said land, and the plaintiff should be estopped from asserting or claiming title as against this defendant; wherefore defendant prays that plaintiff's petition be dismissed. Upon a trial had, judgment was rendered for defendant, dismissing plaintiff's petition, and against him for costs. He appeals.

The evidence was substantially as follows: Plaintiff knew before the sale that the taxes on this land were delinquent, and that the collector had instituted suit to enforce the state's lien. He testified as follows: "I never had any conversation with Mr. Renfro about who owned the lands untii after the lands were stricken off to him." "I never offered to pay the taxes." Defendant Renfro testified as follows: "I was present at the sale of the lands mentioned in plaintiff's petition, and bid on the...