Vallé's Heirs v. Fleming's Heirs

• Decision Date: 31 October 1859
• Citation: 29 Mo. 152
• Parties: VALLÉ'S HEIRS, Respondents, v. FLEMING'S HEIRS, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 Mo. 152

VALLÉ'S HEIRS, Respondents,

v.FLEMING'S HEIRS, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1859.

1. Where land is purchased in good faith at an administrator's sale, which is void because the requirements of the statute are not pursued, and the purchase money is applied in extinguishment of a mortgage to which such land was subject in the hands of the owner, the purchaser will be subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee to the extent of the purchase money applied in the extinguishment of the mortgage, and the owner will not be entitled to recover possession until he repays such purchase money.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court.

This was an action in the nature of ejectment. The plaintiffs, who are six of the seven heirs of C. C. Vallé, deceased, claim six-sevenths of one third less three fifty-sixths of the Mine La Motte tract, containing about 24,000 acres. The case has heretofore been in the supreme court, whose decision is reported in 19 Mo. 454. The cause being remanded, the defendants, the heirs of Thomas Fleming, filed an amended answer. In this answer the defendants set up, as a bar to the recovery of one-half the land sought to be recovered, a deed executed in 1848 by the administrators of said C. C. Vallé in favor of said Thomas Fleming. The validity of this deed was affirmed by this court in the case of Vallé v. Fleming, 19 Mo. 454. The answer then proceeded to set forth, as to the remaining half of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs, that in 1838, said C. C. Vallé, ancestor of plaintiffs, died greatly indebted; that he died seized of the undivided third part of the Mine La Motte tract, subject to an unsatisfied mortgage executed thereupon November 6, 1837, to secure the payment of $67,050; that after the death of said Vallé, the administrators of his estate applied to the county court for an order of sale in order to pay off debts and encumbrances, and particularly the debt secured by said mortgage; that the county court made an order of sale; that the administrators accordingly sold one-half of the interest of said Vallé in said tract to Lemuel Lamb, Elihu Chauncey and Thomas Fleming; and executed deeds^a1 conveying to said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming said one-half of said one-third part of said tract for the sum or price of $50,000; that said sum of $50,000 was applied to and was paid for the exoneration and discharge of the estate of the said Vallé from the lien of the mortgage; that the purchase was made in good faith for full value; that said sum of $50,000 was paid in satisfaction of the mortgage, and the residue of said sum of purchase money so bid by said persons at said sale by the administrators was paid to and received by said administrators; that if said sale and conveyance be not sufficient, by reason of any technical informality or defect, to vest the title in said purchasers, then defendants insist that the money paid to the administrators of Vallé and toward the satisfaction of the mortgage was the money of said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming advanced by them at the instance of said administrators toward paying off the debts of said Vallé and toward the extinguishment and satisfaction of liens on his estate; the said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming and the said administrators acting in perfect good faith, and all persons supposing and intending that said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming should and would acquire a perfect title to said land. The answer then proceeds as follows: [“And the said defendants say that, notwithstanding the apparent and technical payment and extinguishment of said mortgage in manner and form aforesaid, equity will, under the circumstances above shown, treat the said mortgage as still subsisting and unsatisfied for the protection of the said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming, and will subrogate them, the said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming, to all the rights of the mortgagees therein, treating them, the said Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming, as assignees and purchasers of said mortgage for valuable consideration of them had and received. And defendants say that said Thos. Fleming, in his lifetime, purchased and acquired, for valuable consideration, all the interest, estate and property of the said Lamb and Chauncey in and to the said tract of land supposed to be conveyed as aforesaid by the said administrators of said C. C. Vallé to the said Lamb and Chauncey; and that he is the assignee for value of all the interest, claim and demand which the said Lamb and Chauncey had to the said sum of money paid and advanced as aforesaid by said Lamb and Chauncey toward the extinguishment of said mortgage. And these defendants are the legal representatives of the said Thomas Fleming, who has died since the institution of this suit; and so these defendants are entitled to be substituted and subrogated to all the rights and privileges which the said mortgagees would enjoy if said mortgage were unpaid, and the said mortgagees were in possession under the same. And defendants say that they are in fact and in equity in possession of said tract of land as assignees of said mortgagees, and entitled to set up the same against any person and all persons impugning their title and possession thereto. And defendants are ready to account for the rents and profits of said land so mortgaged to the said commissioners in plaintiffs' petition mentioned, and to come to a reckoning with the said plaintiffs--charging them, said plaintiffs, with the interest of the said mortgage debt so paid as aforesaid. But defendants charge that the said plaintiffs have, at no time either before or since the institution of this suit, offered to pay off or discharge whatever may be due to said defendants on account of said mortgage. And defendants are ready to verify all the premises as this court may direct and appoint; and they pray that an account may be taken by and under the direction of this court of what is due to those defendants for principal and interest on the said mortgage debt; and that plaintiffs be decreed to pay the said defendants what shall so appear to be due on the taking of said account, together with the costs of this suit, on or before a day to be for that purpose by the court indicated and appointed; and, in default of such payment, that the plaintiffs be foreclosed and forever barred of and from all right and equity of redemption of, in and to the said mortgaged premises and every part of the same; and also be decreed to deliver and yield up to the defendants all deeds and writings whatsoever, in possession of said plaintiffs, relating to said mortgaged premises; and that the court here will make such further order and decree in the premises as the equity of the case may require.”]

The portion of said answer above set forth and enclosed within brackets the court struck out on motion of plaintiffs. The cause was afterwards heard upon its merits and determined in favor of the plaintiffs, the court rendering judgment in their favor for six-sevenths of one-sixth of the Mine La Motte tract, excluding the sixteenth section in two several townships. It is deemed necessary to set forth the facts only so far as they throw light upon the action of the court in striking out a portion of defendant's answer.

Leonard and Gantt, for appellants.

I. The question is not merely whether the plaintiffs have a legal right to recover the land, but also whether the defendants have any equitable defence against the recovery. If the administrators' sale is valid, that transaction defeats the plaintiffs' supposed legal right; if it is void, yet, having been made in fact and the purchase money having been applied to pay off a mortgage upon the property as well as other debts of the ancestor, equity will not permit the heir to recover the land without first refunding the purchaser what he paid for it. (Dufour v. Camfranc, 11 Mart. 610; Howard v. North, 5 Texas, 302; McLaughlin's adm'r v. Daniel, 8 Dana, 182; Hudgin v. Hudgin's adm'r, 6 Gratt. 320.) Jure naturæ aequum est, neminem alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem. (Digest Book 50, tit. 17, 206; 1 Kame's Eq. 140, 153-4.) In the present case, the money paid by the purchasers was lost to them through the error that has intervened and goes into the pockets of the heirs, if they are allowed to recover the land without refunding it, and the amount of the gain thus made by the heirs is the precise amount of the debts paid out of the proceeds of the sale, which otherwise would have exhausted their property to that extent. (See Kyner v. Kyner, 6 Watts, 223; 1 Johns. Ch. 412; Buchanan v. Clark, 10 Gratt. 178; 22 Penn. State, 295; Henshaw v. Frier, 1 Bailey, 311; Bentley v. Long, 1 Strobh. 50; Law v. Huffman, 12 Gratt. 629; Gilson v. McCormick, 10 Gill & Jo., 1 Maryl. 66; Belchver v. Forney, 29 Penn. 47; Guasquet v. Robins, 2 Louis. Ann. 408; 11 Gratt. 48; Teed v. Caruthers, 2 Young & Coll. 31; Barnes v. Camack, 1 Barb. 392; King v. McVickers, 3 Sandf. Ch. 192; McLean v. Lafayette, 3 McLean, 587; Heighway v. Pendleton, 15 Ohio, 735; 7 Barb. 29; Hunt v. Hunt, 14 Pick. 374; Peltz. v. Clark, 5 Peters, 481.)

II. The deed made by the administrators of Vallé in 1839 is valid.

III. The defendants being the purchasers for value of the claim of the widow of C. C. Vallé to the land in controversy, they are entitled to the benefit of this purchase in an account with the heirs.

Noell, for respondents.

I. The sale made to Chauncey, Lamb and Fleming in 1839, so far as C. C. Vallé's interest was concerned, was void. (Vallé v. Fleming, 19 Mo. 454; 22 Mo. 310; 23 Mo. 342.)

II. The defendants have no right to be substituted or subrogated to the rights of the mortgagees. At the date of the deeds to Lamb, Chauncey and Fleming, the Mine La Motte tract was owned in common by Pratte, Linn and the representatives of Vallé, Pratte owning one-third, Linn one-third, and Vallé's representatives one-third. There were three deeds executed, one to Chauncey, one to Lamb, and one to Fleming....