Thompson v. Henry

• Decision Date: 30 April 1885
• Citation: 85 Mo. 451
• Parties: THOMPSON v. HENRY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

85 Mo. 451

THOMPSON

v.HENRY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1885.

Appeal from Bates Circuit Court.--HON. JAS. B. GANTT, JUDGE.

REVERSED.

Galloway & Henry for appellant.

(1) The defendant had a good equitable title to the land in question. (2) And plaintiff having purchased with notice of the facts, the court should, as against him, have decreed specific performance of the contract. Hays v. Hall, 4 Porter 374; Deniston v. Hoagland, 67 Ill. 268; De Wolf v. Pratt, 42 Ill. 211; Patterson v. Copeland, 52 How. Pr. 460.

Edwards & Davison and J. K. Brugler for respondent.

(1) There is nothing in defendant's case to warrant the court in finding for him. R. S., sec. 2513; Gibbs v. Sullens, 48 Mo. 237. (2) The court having heard the proof on defendant's answer and having found against him, this court will not review the finding. Chapman v. McIlwrath, 77 Mo. 38; Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 336; (3) There was no proof of good faith on part of appellant, no valuable improvements, nothing in fact done by him which calls for the interference of a court of equity. Ells v. R. R., 51 Mo. 200; Story's Eq. Pl., sec. 762; Widdicombe v. Mercer, 72 Mo. 588.

HENRY, C. J.

This is an action of ejectment by which plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section two, township forty, range thirty, in Bates county. The petition is in the usual form, and the answer a general denial, containing, also, the following equitable defence, viz.: “That on or about the -- day of November, 1879, he entered into an agreement in writing with Howard A. Parish, the plaintiff's vendor, by which it was agreed between said Parish and defendant that said defendant should take possession of the land described in the petition, and fence and occupy the same until said land should rise in value, and until said Parish should see fit to sell the same. In consideration of the fencing of said land, he would give the defendant the preference and refusal of purchasing said land at a price to be fixed by said Parish. That said defendant, relying on the agreement of said Parish, and believing that the same would be carried out in good faith, entered into possession of said land and fenced the same and has ever since held and occupied the same under and by said agreement. That, afterwards, on the twenty-fifth of May, 1881, and before making a deed to the plaintiff, the said Parish named to the defendant the price of said land and offered, in writing, to sell the same to defendant, at the price of six hundred dollars, two hundred to be paid on execution of a deed by said Parish to defendant, and the balance in equal installments due in one and two years, at eight per cent. interest. Upon receipt of which offer to sell said land on the terms aforesaid, defendant immediately accepted, in writing, the offer on the terms named, and notified said Parish of his acceptance, prior to the time said land was conveyed to plaintiff by said Parish. That plaintiff knew each and every one of these facts as aforesaid, but combining and confederating with said Parish by and through his agents, E. P. Henry and R. G. Hartwell, procured a deed to be made from said Parish to plaintiff, purporting to convey said land to him, plaintiff. That said deed is the only claim or color of title plaintiff has to said land. That plaintiff before, and at the time of his purchase of said land from Parish, had full notice of all the rights and equities of defendant, and of all the facts aforesaid, and knowing the same took the same for the purpose of defeating defendant in obtaining his just rights in the premises. Defendant says that he has at all times been ready and willing to comply with the terms of his agreement with said Parish in relation to said land, and to pay the said sum of six hundred dollars, and to secure the payment of the balance in equal installments with interest as aforesaid, and now brings said money and security here into court and tenders the same subject to the order of the court, etc., and prays that said plaintiff be compelled by order of the court to convey said land to defendant, on the terms and conditions of the contract between defendant and Parish,” etc.

The replication denied all the allegations of the answer. On a trial there was a judgment for plaintiff from which defendant has appealed.

Howard Parish conveyed the land to plaintiff by deed, dated the twenty-first of June, 1881. One E. P. Henry and Hartwell were the agents who negotiated for plaintiff with Parish for the land, and Parish...