Stock v. Schloman
| Decision Date | 27 January 1930 |
| Parties | ERNEST STOCK, APPELLANT, v. ELIZABETH SCHLOMAN ET AL., RESPONDENTS |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Osage County.--Hon. R. A. Bruer, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
E. M Zevely and J. P. Peters for appellant.
Virginia Booth and James Booth for respondents.
--This is an action to determine the title to 158 1/2 acres of land in Osage County, brought under the provisions of Section 1970, Revised Statutes 1919. From a judgment decreeing that defendants have a valid and subsisting mortgage lien upon the property owned by plaintiff, he has appealed.
The suit was begun on January 7, 1926, and tried on February 11th of that year. The action was originally commenced against Elizabeth Schlomann and her guardian and curator, Ferdinand Zeitz, (said Schlomann having been adjudged incompetent to manage her affairs). The case was originally appealed to the Supreme Court. That court found that it had no jurisdiction and transferred the case here. [See Stock v Schloman, 322 Mo. 1209, 18 S.W.2d 428.] After the appeal was taken Elizabeth Schlomann died and the cause was revived in the name of her administrator, Laura Walker, who entered her appearance.
The petition is couched in the general verbiage of the statute plaintiff claiming to be the absolute owner of the land in fee simple. The answer admits that plaintiff is the owner of the land in fee simple but alleges that the title is encumbered by a mortgage dated March 16, 1891, given by one Ferdinand Kamin and wife, the then owners of the land, to Elizabeth Schlomann, to secure their note of that date for $ 1800, due one date after date with six per cent interest per annum; that plaintiff purchased said land subject to said mortgage and assumed payment of the debt and had paid the interest thereon continuously up to and including that due on March 16, 1922; that plaintiff now owes the principal sum of $ 1800 with interest thereon from March 16, 1922; that although said mortgage has apparently become barred by the provisions of the Act of 1921 (see Laws of 1921, pp. 202, 203) on account of the lapse of more than twenty years from the date upon which the note secured by the mortgage became due, as appearing on the face of the mortgage, and by reason of the failure of defendants as holders of said mortgage to file an affidavit duly verified showing the amount due on said mortgage within two years from the date of said act of the General Assembly, yet plaintiff thereafter, on April 4, 1925, in writing acknowledged the existence of said mortgage and debt and in writing subscribed by him under said date promised to pay said mortgage absolutely; that by reason thereof said mortgage debt became revived and is still in force and effect. The answer asks that the title, estate and interest of the parties in the land be ascertained and that the mortgage be adjudged to be a valid charge on the land for the amount unpaid.
The reply admits that "said lands are encumbered by the mortgage described in defendants' answer given on the date alleged by Ferdinand Kamin and wife, for the purpose as in said answer alleged, and that same is recorded," and that plaintiff made payments on the note as alleged in the answer. The reply denies the other allegations in the answer except the allegation in reference to the mortgage being apparently barred, and alleges that said mortgage "is barred by the provisions of the act of the General Assembly of Missouri, approved March 31, 1921, through lapse of more than twenty years, from date of maturity of the note therein in said mortgage described, and through the failure of defendants to file an affidavit, duly verified, showing the amount due on said mortgage within two years from the date of said act." The reply prays that the court "decree said mortgage null and void, and barred by law and order same cancelled of record, and for all relief prayed for in plaintiff's petition." As before stated the court adjudged that the mortgage remained a valid and subsisting lien.
At the trial plaintiff was called as a witness for defendants. He testified that Ferdinand Kamin was his step-father and that the wife of said Ferdinand was his mother; that said Kamin had been dead for twenty-two years; that he purchased said real estate from said Kamin; that when he made said purchase he assumed the payment of the mortgage in question; that he thereafter paid the interest on said mortgage to Elizabeth Schlomann and that all interest due on said mortgage had been paid except for the last two years" and $ 36 from before;" that he had written letters to defendant Zeitz about the mortgage. One of these letters was dated January 21, 1924. In this letter plaintiff stated that he had paid part of the interest and intended to pay the rest when he sold his corn; that he would pay the taxes the "first of the month." In another of these letters to Zeitz written on April 4, 1925, plaintiff stated that he knew he should have paid the interest on the mortgage but that he had suffered bad luck as his boy had been killed and the boy's death had cost plaintiff a great deal of money; that he intended to pay the taxes and interest "this fall;" that he was going to pay the taxes and part of the interest if he possibly could. Letters were offered from Zeitz to plaintiff urging payment of the taxes on the land and interest on the mortgage.
Plaintiff further testified that he bought the real estate in controversy from said Kamin and wife but sold forty acres of it "back to" Kamin; that Zeitz had been making demand on him for the payment of the note secured by the mortgage; that he talked to "them" about holding the mortgage and that "they" spoke of enforcing the mortgage.
Defendant Zeitz testified that he was a nephew of Elizabeth Schlomann; that she was about eighty-five years of age at the time of the trial. The witness produced and introduced in evidence two letters from plaintiff in which the latter offered to pay the interest on the note and the taxes on the land. The witness produced the mortgage and the note in question showing payment of the interest in full to and including the year 1922. Defendants offered in evidence the mortgage in question dated March 16, 1891; also a warranty deed from Ferdinand Kamin and wife to plaintiff dated January 6, 1898, (consideration $ 1800) by which the real estate in question was conveyed to plaintiff; also quit-claim deed dated July 18, 1898, from plaintiff and wife to said Kamin conveying forty acres of the real estate to Kamin. This deed contained the following language "except a certain mortgage which the undersigned agrees to satisfy." Defendants also offered in evidence a quit-claim deed from said Kamin (his wife then being dead) to one Howard, dated April 20, 1905, conveying to said Howard the forty acres of said land last described. The conveyance was made upon condition that Howard would support and maintain Kamin, pay his funeral expenses, etc., and contained the following language: "This deed is made subject to a certain mortgage deed covering this and three other forty acre tracts." Plaintiff then offered in evidence a warranty deed from said Howard to himself dated December 15, 1906, and conveying said forty acre tract. This deed contained the same language as that last quoted from the deed from Kamin to Howard.
Plaintiff contends that the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of defendants, adjudging that the mortgage was a valid and subsisting lien against the property. In this connection it is claimed, in effect, that more than twenty years having elapsed at the time of the passage of the Act of 1921 (see Laws of 1921, p. 203), since the note secured by the mortgage became due as disclosed on the face of the mortgage, and suit not having been brought until the 7th day of January, 1926, or more than two years after the passage of the act, the mortgage at the time of the filing of this suit was absolutely void and of no effect, as the owner of the indebtedness did not file the affidavit or instrument required by the Act of 1921. We think this contention is well taken.
Under the provisions of the ten year general Statute of Limitations (section 1316, R. S. 1919) a note becomes barred in ten years after it becomes due. But under the common law a mortgage was not barred for twenty years and the courts held that although the ten year statute barred the note it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rains v. Moulder
... ... Peniston v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co., 234 Mo. 698, ... 138 S.W. 532; 49 C. J. 322; Daniel v. Pryor, 227 ... S.W. 104; Stock v. Schloman, 42 S.W.2d 64; ... Williams v. Walker, 62 S.W.2d 840. (2) The court was ... without jurisdiction to grant plaintiff a lien for ... ...
-
Emery v. Holt County
... ... Conover, 223 Mo ... 477; Bonsor v. Madison, 204 Mo. 97; Sec. 888, R. S ... 1929; State ex inf. v. Arkansas Lbr. Co., 260 Mo. 285; Stock ... v. Schloman, 226 Mo.App. 234 ... ... Gantt, ... [345 ... Mo. 224] Action to enjoin ... ...
-
City of Lebanon v. Holman, 8477
... ... McVey, 365 Mo. 477, 284 S.W.2d 492(14); Campbell v. Webb, 363 Mo. 1192, 258 S.W.2d 595 ... 3 71 C.J.S. Pleading § 86(c), pp. 204--205; Stock v. Schloman, 226 Mo.App. 234, 42 S.W.2d 61(4); Peak v. Judd, Mo.App., 278 S.W. 1044; see Dietrich ... ...
-
Ste. Genevieve County v. Heberlie
...the same was filed in the proper place, namely in the recorder's office. Stock v. Schloman, 42 S.W.2d 61, 226 Mo.App. 234, transferred 18 S.W.2d 428. The limitations of Section 1017, R. S. 1939, did not begin to run until the cause of action accrued, which was the maturity date of the bond,......