Steadman v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 80 Mo. 319
• Parties: STEADMAN, Appellant, v. HAYES et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

80 Mo. 319

STEADMAN, Appellant,

v.HAYES et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Benton Circuit Court.--HON. J. B. GANTT, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

M. A. Fyke and R. W. Campbell for appellant.

The court erred in dismissing complainant's bill. The evidence clearly shows the trade was fully consummated when Mitchell, the agent of Hayes, delivered the deed to Stoddart. But, if the trade was conditional, and Mitchell exceeded his authority in delivering the deed, Hayes ratified the act. Hayes received no consideration for the deed to his daughters, and if executed when claimed, it was voluntary as to subsequent purchasers without notice Defendants, who claimed the land, did not testify in the cause. This shows lack of good faith and taints their claim with fraud. Baldwin v. Whitcomb, 71 Mo. 651; Mabrey v. McClurg, 74 Mo. 575. Defendants are estopped from claiming under the deed to Hayes' daughters, although it was for a valuable consideration and executed prior to the Stoddart deed. “The true rule is, that if a man so conducts himself, whether intentionally or not, that a reasonable person would infer that a certain state of things exists, and acts on the impression, he shall afterward be estopped from denying it.” Sherrill v. Sherrill, 73 N. C. 8; Henderson v. Lemly, 79 N. C. 169; Raley v. Williams, 73 Mo. 310; Harrington v. Utterback, 57 Mo. 519; Brooks v. Kearns, 86 Ill. 547. The case is clearly within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. 2 Story's Eq., (4 Ed.) p. 12, § 700; Martin v. Rowe, 39 Ala. 722; Standish v. Dow, 21 Iowa 363; Dowing v. Wherrin, 19 N. H. 9; McGhee v. Wright, 16 Ill. 555; Almony v. Hicks, 3 Head. 39; Thompson v. Lynch, 29 Cal. 189. The fact that the conveyance, as between Stoddart and plaintiff is a mortgage, cannot affect plaintiff's rights.

James H. Lay and W. S. Shirk for respondents.

Plaintiff's petition shows that he has no grounds for relief in equity. Hayes' deed to Stoddart, in the hands of Mitchell, was only an escrow. Stoddart having obtained possession of it without complying with the conditions upon which it was to be delivered, it was void in his hands, and even if plaintiff was a purchaser from him for a full consideration, and without notice, he would take no title. 3 Washburn on Real Prop., pp. 283, 287, 293, 294, 301, 303, and notes and cases cited; Townsend v. Hawkins, 45 Mo. 286; Stanley v. Valentine, 79 Ill. 548. The deeds from Stoddart to Williams, and from Williams to plaintiff, are at most only mortgages. O'Neil v. Capelle, 62 Mo. 202; Turner v. Kerr, 44 Mo. 429. Plaintiff's deed being a mere quitclaim, he is considered in law as buying with notice of all prior equities, whether he had actual knowledge of them or not. Ridgeway v. Holliday, 59 Mo. 444; Stivers v. Horne, 62 Mo. 473; Austin v. Sorney, 63 Mo. 19. A volunteer cannot successfully come into equity against another volunteer, and though Hayes' deed to his children was without consideration, parties claiming under him afterward without consideration, or with notice, cannot set it aside. 1 Story's Eq., § 433; Wallace v. Wilson, 30 Mo. 335; Bishop v. Schneider, 46 Mo. 472; Arbuchon v. Baider, 44 Mo. 560; Maupin v. Emmons, 47 Mo. 304. Plaintiff has never been in possession. This is an action to quiet title or remove a cloud from the title, and he must be in possession to maintain it. 1 Story's Eq., § 711 a; Bispham's Eq., § 575; Clark v. Ins. Co., 52 Mo. 272.

HENRY, J.

By this action plaintiff seeks to set aside a conveyance of certain town lots in the town of Warsaw, and tracts of land in Barton county by William Hayes to his co-defendants, his daughters, dated January 31, 1876, and recorded the 17th day of May, 1876, alleging that on the 9th of May, 1876, said Hayes and wife, by their deed of that date and recorded May 20, 1876, conveyed the same property to Ashton B. Stoddart, who paid a valuable consideration therefor, without any notice of the conveyance to Hayes's daughters, which was without consideration, and contrived by them for the purpose of defrauding and cheating Stoddart out of said property. That although said deed to his daughters purports to have been made and acknowledged on the 31st of January, 1876, it was not in fact made, or acknowledged, until long afterwards. Plaintiff claims the property in controversy by deed from one W. H. Williams, dated July 27th, 1876, to whom it was conveyed by Stoddart and wife the 13th of May, 1876.

The answer of defendants put in issue all the material allegations in the petition, and pleaded specially that, on or about the 9th day of May, 1876, William Hayes and Stoddart made a conditional agreement for exchange of hotel property owned by Stoddart at Osage Mission, Kansas, for the property of Hayes in controversy. That on the hotel property there was an incumbrance of $1,500, and the condition of the exchange was that Stoddart should pay to Hayes money to pay it off, and that in order to enable Stoddart to obtain the money, Hayes and wife executed the deed above mentioned to Stoddart, and placed it in the hands of Edgar Mitchell, a son-in-law of Hayes, with the understanding and agreement between them that Mitchell should accompany Stoddart to Sedalia, and ascertain if a loan of $1,500 could be effected by Stoddart on the land. That the deed was placed in Mitchell's hands that he might show it to parties of whom the loan might be solicited, but it was not to be delivered to Stoddart until the loan was obtained and the $1,500 paid to Hayes. That the loan was not effected, nor the $1,500 ever paid to Hayes, but that Stoddart, in violation of his said agreement, and by means unknown to defendants, fraudulently obtained possession of the deed and filed it for record with the recorder, etc., and that neither Hayes no his co-defendants ever received any consideration for said conveyance, and that the deed was never delivered to Stoddart by Hayes' authority. They also aver that when the agreement was made between Hayes and Stoddart, Jennie, Susan, and Clara Hayes, daughters and co-defendants, agreed with Hayes to convey to him or Stoddart, as they might determine, their title to the land, for a valuable consideration to be paid to them. The court found for defendants and dismissed the bill, and from this judgment the plaintiff has appealed.

...