Stuart v. Ramsey

Decision Date29 March 1906
Citation196 Mo. 404,95 S.W. 382
PartiesSTUART v. RAMSEY et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Rev. St. 1899, § 9303, provides that actions for delinquent taxes shall be prosecuted at the relation of the collector against the owner of the property. A collector sued the record owner for delinquent taxes though he knew that a third person owned the land under an unrecorded deed. The purchaser at the tax sale had notice of the unrecorded deed. Held, that the purchaser at the tax sale acquired no title as against the third person.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Action by T. G. Stuart against H. M. Ramsey and others. From a judgment in favor of certain defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John B. Denvir, Jr., for appellant. Frank H. Farris and A. H. Harrison, for respondents.

GANTT, J.

This is an action brought by T. G. Stuart, a resident and citizen of the state of Kentucky, under section 650, Rev. St. 1899, to ascertain and determine his title and interest and the interest and title of the defendants in certain real estate lying in the county of Crawford in the state of Missouri, to wit: The N. W. ¼ of the N. E. ¼ of section 27, and the south half of the S. W. ¼, and the S. W. ¼ of the S. E. ¼ of section 22, all being in township 37, N. of range 4 W., and containing in all 320 acres. The suit was returnable to the March term, 1902, of the circuit court of Crawford county. Plaintiff alleged that he was the owner in fee simple, and claimed title to the said lands; that he was informed, and believed that the defendants made some claim of title, estate, or interest in and to said premises adverse to the title and interest of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendant had cut and removed from the premises, a large amount of timber, which was standing and growing thereon, of the value of $200. The defendants at the August term, 1902, filed a joint answer to the petition, wherein they denied plaintiff's ownership of the said lands and averred that they (the defendants) were the owners in fee thereof, and under their title were in the absolute and exclusive possession of the said premises, and prayed for judgment decreeing the title to said lands to be in the defendants. On a motion of the defendants the court struck out that portion of the plaintiff's petition which sought to recover for the timber alleged to have been cut by the defendants. At the said August term, 1902, the cause was heard and a judgment and decree rendered in favor of the defendants, H. M. Ramsey and William E. Evans, and that all the right, title, and interest of the plaintiff be vested absolutely in the said defendants. In due time the plaintiff filed his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, and the same were heard and overruled by the court and exceptions saved by the plaintiff, and thereupon an appeal was granted to this court.

On the trial it was stipulated in open court that on February 29, 1891, Richard Newberry was the owner of the land in question, and that he conveyed it by proper deed of conveyance to the American Real Estate & Investment Company, a corporation, which deed was duly recorded in the recorder's office of Crawford county, Mo. The plaintiff then read in evidence a warranty deed dated January 23, 1897, and filed for record March 3, 1902, and recorded in Deed Record Book No. 49, page 377, from the American Real Estate & Investment Company to James Halley, of Stoner, in the state of Kentucky. Plaintiff then offered in evidence a general warranty deed of date August 20, 1900, and filed for record March 3, 1902, and duly recorded from James Halley, a single man, to T. G. Stuart, of the city of Clark in the state of Kentucky. This was the plaintiff's case in chief. Thereupon the defendants offered in evidence the original petition and tax bill marked "Exhibit A," filed January 12, 1901. In the suit in which J. F. Hethcock as collector was plaintiff, and the American Real Estate & Investment Company defendant, for delinquent taxes on the lands in suit for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899, the action was brought to the circuit court of Crawford county, at the February term, 1901. The aggregate of the taxes sued for the said years being $22.59. The petition was in the ordinary form of such actions. The certified tax bill filed with the petition shows the land was assessed to the American Real Estate & Investment Company. To the introduction of the rolls in the said cause, the plaintiff objected on the ground that the suit appeared to be against the American Real Estate & Investment Company, and the service was had upon a man who is recited in the return of the sheriff as president of the corporation, who in truth and in fact was not the president of the corporation, and for another reason that the writ was issued on the 12th of January, 1901, and required the said defendant to appear at the February term, 1901, of the said court and purports to have been served on the 21st of January, 1901, which objections, were by the court overruled, and exceptions saved. The return of the sheriff is in these words: "served this writ in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, on the within-named defendant, the American Real Estate & Investment Company, a corporation, this 24th day of January, 1901, by delivering a copy of the writ and petition as furnished by the clerk to D. A. Dyer, its president. Joseph F. Dickman, Sheriff, by Thos. B. Kilcullen, Deputy."

Defendants then introduced in evidence, the judgment rendered at the February term, 1901, on the 16th day of May, 1901, upon the said tax petition to which plaintiff objected, because the service was not sufficient for final judgment at that term. Said judgment was for $30.43 and for costs, and the collector's commission and attorney's fees all of which were adjudged a special lien against the lands in suit, and special execution awarded. The defendants also offered in evidence the special execution in due form on said judgment and the return of the sheriff thereon, which was not signed by the sheriff. The return of the sheriff, showed that the lands in question were sold to H. M. Ramsey for $45. Upon the application of the defendants the court permitted the sheriff to amend his return by signing his name to the return on the execution of which the plaintiff then and there objected and excepted. Defendants also offered in evidence the notice of the sale of the land in suit and also the notice of the levy and the sheriff's report of sale. Defendants then offered in evidence the sheriff's deed by W. R. Taff, sheriff of Crawford county, for the said lands to H. M. Ramsey and William E. Evans, acknowledged before William E. Evans, clerk of the said court, and duly recorded August 31, 1901. The defendants then rested. Thereupon the plaintiff in rebuttal called J. D. McCormick, who was sworn and testified that he had lived at Cuba, Mo., for six years; that he had known plaintiff for about two and a half years, but had corresponded with him previous to meeting him personally; that he knew H. M. Ramsey and W. E. Evans; that he did not learn of the sale of the lands in suit until January or February, 1902. He first learned of it from Mr. Ramsey, who told him of it in the Bank of Cuba. He testified that the plaintiff wrote to him some eight or ten months prior to the sale of this land, for a statement of its taxes, and the witness wrote to Mr. Hethcock for statement of its taxes, prior to August, 1901, and the bill was about $50, and "I sent it to Mr. Stuart, the plaintiff, and he wrote back to see if I could not get the bill cut, and I wrote the plaintiff that it would cost him more to get a reduction than the reduction would be worth." He was then asked, if prior to that time, he had a conversation with Mr. Ramsey, one of the defendants, about this land, and he answered: "I was in the Bank of Cuba, and had a letter from Mr. Stuart [the plaintiff] asking me if I would pay the taxes on the land and make a draft on him, and I was in the bank and told this to Mr. Ramsey, and remarked, `The record did not show the land to be in Mr. Stuart's name,' and that I only had a passing acquaintance with him, and I declined to do so, and I thought I would put Mr. Stuart in correspondence with Mr. Hethcock, and I did so, and the next thing I knew the land was sold. Q. Did you tell Mr. Ramsey who was the owner of this land prior to that time? A. I told him that Mr. Stuart claimed the land and said he had a deed to it, but the deed was not on record." Witness testified that he knew the location of the land and was in the real estate business. He testified further he was the agent of the plaintiff, and that the land was worth about $2 to $2.50 per acre, or about $700 or $800. On cross-examination he testified that he had quite a correspondence with Mr. Stuart about the taxes, and notified him by letter that his taxes were due about two or three times; that he got a statement of the taxes from the collector, Mr. Hethcock, and sent them to the plaintiff, he did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Keaton v. Jorndt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 23, 1914
    ...was not the real owner, although so appearing by the records to be, no title passed to the purchaser at such a tax sale. Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404, 95 S. W. 382; Zweigart v. Reed, 221 Mo. 33, 119 S. W. 960; Rothenberger v. Garrett, supra; Ohlmann v. Sawmill Co., 222 Mo. 62, 120 S. W. 11......
  • Richards v. Earls, 35820.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • November 3, 1939
    ......68; Darrie v. Whitton, 13 S.W. (2d) 47; Little River Drainage District v. Sheppard, 7 S.W. (2d) 1014; Zweigart v. Reed, 221 Mo. 33; Stuart" v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404; Keaton v. Jorndt, 168 S.W. 734; Mo. Real Estate & Loan Co. v. Gibson, 220 S.W. 675; Adams v. Gossom, 228 Mo. 566. .     \xC2"......
  • Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 31, 1944
    ...Pearce v. Tittsworth, 87 Mo. 635; Duff v. Neilson, 90 Mo. 937, 2 S.W. 222; Cruzen v. Stephens, 123 Mo. 357, 27 S.W. 557; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404, 95 S.W. 382; Wilcox v. Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S.W. 55; Taft v. Tallman, 277 Mo. 157, 209 S.W. 868; Charter Oak Land & Lbr. Co. v. Bippu......
  • Spitcaufsky v. Hatten
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 31, 1944
    ...... 263; Pearce v. Tittsworth, 87 Mo. 635; Duff v. Neilson, 90 Mo. 937, 2 S.W. 222; Cruzen v. Stephens, 123 Mo. 357, 27 S.W. 557; Stuart v. Ramsey, 196 Mo. 404, 95 S.W. 382; Wilcox v. Phillips, 260 Mo. 664, 169 S.W. 55; Taft v. Tallman, 277 Mo. 157, 209 S.W. 868; Charter Oak ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT