Truchon v. Mackey
Decision Date | 04 February 1913 |
Citation | 153 S.W. 502,171 Mo.App. 42 |
Parties | BENJAMIN A. TRUCHON, Defendant in Error, v. GEORGE C. MACKEY, Trustee, Plaintiff in Error |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Error to St. Louis City Circuit Court.--Hon. James E. Withrow Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Watts Gentry & Lee, for plaintiff in error.
(1) The petition fails to state a cause of action. (2) The deed of trust as charged in the petition contains an express covenant and agreement that the mortgagor shall pay all taxes lawfully assessed against the mortgaged premises. Rumsey v Railroad, 154 Mo. 215; Cannock v. Jones, 3 Exch. 233; Montford v. Cadogan, 19 Ves. Jr. 635; Bower v. Hodges, 13 C. B. 765. (3) A stipulation in a deed of trust that the mortgagor shall pay all taxes assessed against the mortgaged property, and that in case of default thereof the mortgagee may at his option declare the entire debt due and instruct the trustee under an express power of sale to make a public sale of the premises to satisfy the taxes and debt, is valid and enforcible. Jones Mortgages (6 Ed.), secs. 77 and 1175; 27 Cyc. 1254, 1451; Rumsey v. Railroad, 154 Mo. 215; Horrigan v Wellmuth, 77 Mo. 542; Gooch v. Botts, 110 Mo. 419; Phillips v. Bailey, 82 Mo. 639; Phefinghauser v. Schearer, 65 Mo.App. 348; Meier v. Meier, 105 Mo. 411; Dalton v. Eaves, 92 Mo.App. 72; Brown v. Brown, 124 Mo. 79; Burnes Est. v. Ayr Lawn Co., 82 Mo.App. 66; Stanclift v. Norton, 11 Kan. 218; Ellwood v. Walcott, 22 Kan. 526; O'Connor v. Shipman, 45 How. Pr. 126; Parker v. Olliver, 106 Ala. 549; Lawler v. French, 104 Va. 140; Brickell v. Batchilder, 62 Cal. 623; Gustav Assn. v. Kratz, 55 Maryland 394; Condon v. Maynard, 71 Md. 601.
H. A. Yonge and John W. Benstein filed argument for defendant in error.
--This is a suit in equity for injunctive relief. The finding and judgment were for plaintiff, who is defendant in error here, and defendant in the suit, who is plaintiff in error, prosecutes a writ of error here.
The important question for consideration relates to the right of a trustee to exercise the power of sale vested in him by a deed of trust, on demand of the cestui que trust, for a breach of the mortgagor's covenant to pay taxes accrued on the mortgaged premises. The circuit court denied the right and decreed a perpetual injunction against the exercise of the power of sale for the breach of the covenant mentioned.
By his deed of trust, in the usual form, of date June 1, 1907, and duly recorded, plaintiff in the suit (defendant in error here) conveyed to Charles J. Burde, of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, as trustee, a parcel of real estate, therein described, to secure the payment of a cash loan in the amount of $ 2200 and interest thereon, evidenced by certain promissory notes, therein described, payable to Conrad Kraft, Jr. Afterwards defendant in the present suit, and plaintiff in error here, was substituted instead of Burde as trustee in the deed of trust, and thereby clothed with all of the powers conferred in that instrument. The principal note described in the deed of trust in the amount of $ 2200 is, by its terms, payable three years after date, and the remaining six notes were for semiannual installments of interest on the principal sum, in the amount of $ 66 each, and payable, respectively, six, twelve, eighteen, twenty-four and thirty-six months after date.
It is stipulated in the deed of trust that "when any one of said notes, whether of interest or principal, became due and payable and should remain unpaid, then all of such notes should become due and payable, whether due on their face or not, to secure the payment of which said notes the party of the first part has executed this deed of trust." The deed of trust stipulates that the plaintiff mortgagor (Italics are our own.)
There was no default in the payment of any of the notes described in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lunsford v. Davis
...cannot make contracts for parties, and the decree by reinstating the mortgage violates its express covenants. 13 C. J. 525; Truchon v. Mackey, 171 Mo.App. 42. C. Small, C., not sitting. OPINION LINDSAY, C. -- The plaintiffs, Nora L. S. Lunsford, and William G. Lunsford her husband, brought ......
-
Wilson v. Reed
...the note. [Rumsey v. Peoples Railway Co., 154 Mo. 215, 55 S.W. 615, 246, 55 S.W. 615; Truchon v. Mackey, 171 Mo.App. 42, 153 S.W. 502, 47, 153 S.W. 502; Philips Bailey, 82 Mo. 639.] Those cases recognize the validity of a condition in a deed of trust, a violation of which would create a for......