Valle v. Clemens

• Citation: 18 Mo. 486
• Parties: VALLE et al., Appellants, v. CLEMENS et al., Respondents.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1853
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

18 Mo. 486

VALLE et al., Appellants,

v.CLEMENS et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1853.

1. A husband and wife executed a deed, by which they “bargained, sold and quit-claimed” to the grantee and his heirs, “all their right, title, interest, estate, claim and demand, as well in possession as in expectancy, of, in and to” a specified tract of land. The wife, at the time, had an interest in the land, upon which the deed might have operated, if it had been properly acknowledged. Held, a title subsequently acquired by the husband, by purchase, did not, under the sixth section of the act of 1825, regulating conveyances, enure to the grantee.

2. Neither verbal admissions nor mere presence at a survey can operate as an estoppel in pais.

Appeal from Perry Circuit Court.

This was a suit for partition, and the dispute was, as to the extent of the interests of some of the parties. The heirs of C. C. Valle, by virtue of a deed from Robert T. Brown and wife to their father, executed in 1831, claimed an interest of seven hundred arpents, which was also claimed by James Clemens, under Brown. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Scott & Young, for appellants.

I. The deed from Robert T. Brown and wife to Charles C. Valle, in 1831, for seven hundred arpents, was effectual to pass the title subsequently acquired by Brown.

II. Brown, and Clemens, his privy in estate, are estopped by his acts and declarations. He stood by and assented to the survey made in 1845, and made frequent declarations that the heirs of C. C. Valle were entitled to the quantity they claim. (Taylor & Mason v. Zepp, 14 Mo. 482.)

Haight & Shepley, for respondents.

The case of Bogy v. Shoab is against the position assumed by the appellants, but this case differs from that.

I. An estate was conveyed by the deed. It is not the case of a man who has no title conveying and afterwards acquiring. This latter case is the only one contemplated by the statute.

II. The grantors had a good title. The acknowledgment of the wife

may not be good to pass her interest, but beyond all doubt she then had the title.

GAMBLE, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The principal question in this case is, whether the title acquired by Robert T. Brown, in the large tract of land described in the petition, after the deed made by him and his wife to Charles C. Valle, enured to the benefit of Valle. Another question is also made upon the effect of certain acts of the parties, which it is alleged operate as an estoppel in pais, binding upon Brown and upon Clemens as a privy in estate.

The deed from Brown and wife to Valle is dated April 4, 1831, and by it, they bargain, sell and quit claim to Valle and his heirs “all their, and each of their right, title, interest, estate, claim and demand, both at law and in equity, as well in possession as in expectancy, of, in and to seven hundred arpents of land, being part of an undivided Spanish grant, lying on the Saline Creek, and known as the Grand Glaise tract.” At the date of this conveyance, Mrs. Brown, the wife of R. T. Brown, owned n undivided interest in the tract of two undivided sevenths, much exceeding the quantity of seven hundred arpents conveyed to Valle; but Robert T. Brown himself had not then acquired title to any portion of he tract. The deed of Brown and wife to Valle was not so acknowledged as to operate upon any interest which was in Mrs. Brown. Brown afterwards, on the 5th November, 1836, acquired an interest in the tract f one-seventh, or something more than one thousand arpents, by conveyance from Nancy Bullitt. The plaintiffs, representatives of Charles . Valle, claimed that the title thus acquired by Brown enured to the benefit of their father.

After Brown and wife had made their conveyance to Valle, a deed of partition was made among the several owners of the tract, Valle himself not being a party to the deed, and by it a portion, called in the record lot No. 6, was set apart to Brown and his wife for their three shares in the tract. They had become owners of three shares in the following manner: Mrs. Brown in her own right, as heir of her father, the original grantee, had one-seventh, and by devise from a deceased sister was entitled to another seventh. Brown had the seventh acquired from Nancy Bullitt. It appears from the deed of partition that Charles C. Valle was one of the heirs of the original grantee, and as such entitled to one-seventh of the tract, and that he had sold nine hundred arpents of his share, which had become vested in one of the parties to the deed of partition. The deed further stated, that the quantity in the tract was seven thousand and fifty-six arpents, or one league square, and that Charles C. Valle, as one of the heirs, was entitled to one hundred and eighty arpents, which, with the nine hundred that he had sold and conveyed, would make up his full share of one-seventh. If the deed is correctly copied on the record, there is a mistake in the original, as one-seventh of seven thousand and fifty-six arpents is one thousand and eight arpents, from which, if the sale made by Valle of nine hundred arpents is deducted, there would remain to him one hundred and eight arpents, and not one hundred and eighty. In the deed of partition, it is stated, that this residue of the share of Charles C. Valle is, by the consent of all parties, to be set apart with the share of Brown and wife.

Evidence was given for the purpose of showing that when the survey was made and the tract subdivided, preparatory to the partition, Brown recognized Charles C. Valle as entitled to an interest in the land, and agreed that the portion to which he was entitled should be included in the portion set apart for Brown and wife. There was also evidence given of a survey made after the partition, for C. C. Valle, at which Brown was present, by which the land claimed under the deed of Brown and wife was surveyed together with one hundred and eight arpents claimed by Valle as the residue of his share in the original tract.

Clemens purchased the interest of R. T. Brown in the tract set apart for the shares of Brown and his wife. The purchase was evidenced by a sheriff's deed and by two deeds executed by the administrator of Brown. If C. C. Valle's title was not rendered complete in consequence of the title which was conveyed to Brown after...