Strong v. Whybark

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Woodson
• Citation: 204 Mo. 341,102 S.W. 968
• Parties: STRONG v. WHYBARK et al.
• Decision Date: 25 May 1907

102 S.W. 968 204 Mo. 341 STRONG
v.
WHYBARK et al. Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1. May 25, 1907.

1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER — SUBSEQUENT BONA FIDE PURCHASER — TITLE ACQUIRED.

A grantee under a quitclaim deed for a valuable consideration and without notice, who had first recorded her deed, took title as against a prior grantee from the original grantor under Rev. St. 1899, § 925 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 847], declaring that no written instrument shall be valid except as between the parties and such as have actual notice until the same shall have been deposited with the recorder for record.

2. SAME — CONSIDERATION — VALUABLE CONSIDERATION.

A quitclaim deed reciting that the conveyance was made for and in consideration of natural love and affection and $5 to the grantor in hand paid by the grantee, the receipt of which was acknowledged, was based on a valuable consideration sufficient to entitle the grantee to the rights of a bona fide purchaser for value.

3. SAME — ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION.

It is not necessary that the consideration for a deed should be adequate in point of value in order to constitute the grantee a bona fide purchaser.

4. SAME — NOTICE — QUITCLAIM.

The rule that a quitclaim is notice to the grantee of existing equities has no application where the grantee under a quitclaim deed from one whose prior deed to another grantee was still unrecorded acquired the title for value and without notice of the former deed.

5. EVIDENCE — PAROL EVIDENCE — DEED — WANT OF CONSIDERATION.

Want of consideration for a deed cannot be shown against a recital of a consideration for the purpose of defeating the operative words of the deed.

6. QUIETING TITLE — FRAUD — PLEADING AND PROOF.

In a suit to quiet title by the holder of a prior deed which was not recorded until after the record of a subsequent quitclaim deed from the same grantor, plaintiff was not entitled to claim that the subsequent deed was fraudulent where such defense was neither pleaded or proved.

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

Action by Francis E. Strong against Levi E. Whybark and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

This is a bill in equity, instituted in the circuit court of Butler county, wherein plaintiff seeks to have her title quieted to 520 acres of land. John R. Boyden was one of the several defendants named in the bill. He filed an answer, claiming an interest in and to 160 acres of said land, and also denied generally the allegations of the bill. No point is made against the pleadings, and he is the only defendant whose interest is involved in this appeal. The facts in the case are undisputed, and are as follows:

[102 S.W. 969]

Seth D. Hayden was the common source of title, and on March 6, 1861, by his warranty deed, for a recited consideration in the deed of $640, conveyed said land to William A. Moore, and on August 26, 1863, said Hayden, by his quitclaim deed, for a recited consideration of "natural love and affection and five dollars," conveyed the same land to Josephine Hayden. The deed to Hayden was recorded April 11, 1868, and the one to Moore was recorded December 14, 1874. The plaintiff's title is derived through mesne conveyances from Josephine Hayden, while defendant's title is derived through similar conveyances from William A. Moore. It was admitted that the land was wild and unoccupied. This was all the evidence in the case. The court found for defendant, and rendered judgment for him. The plaintiff in due time filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled by the court, and to the action of the court in overruling said motion the plaintiff duly excepted, and has appealed the cause to this court.

James G. Strong and E. R. Lentz, for appellant. Wm. N. Barron, for respondents.

WOODSON, J. (after stating the facts).

1. The sole question involved in...